IgUTAVilagBEiH 


OF  SoClALIS: 

, jK 


WsmM: 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
AT   LOS  ANGELES 


THE  GIFT  OF 

MAY  TREAT  MORRISON 

IN  MEMORY  OF 

ALEXANDER  F  MORRISON 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  witii  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


littp://www.arcliive.org/details/fundamentalfallaOOpreuiala 


THE    FUNDAMENTAL 
FALLACY  OF  SOCIALISM 


AN    EXPOSITION   OF   THE  QUESTION 
^         COF  LANDOWNERSHIP 
J  A  h^ 


(^^^ 


COMPRISING  AN  AUTHENTIC  ACCOUNT 
OF  THE  FAMOUS  McGLYNN  CASE 


EDITED    BY 

ARTHUR  PREUSS 

EDITOR  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  FORTNIGHTLY  REVIEW 


ST.   LOUIS,    MO.,    AND   FREIBURG  (BADEN) 
Published  by  B.  Herder 

1908 


.  V   1  '/i\/ 


NIHIL   OBSTAT. 

F.    G.    HOLWECK, 


St.  Louis,  Dec.  27,  1907. 


Censor. 


St.  Louis,  Dec,  28,  1907. 


IMPRIMATUR. 

•^  Joannes  J.  Glbnnon, 

Archiepiscopus  Sti.  Ludovici. 


Copyright,  1908,  by  Joseph  Gummersbach. 


— BECKTOLD— 

PRINTING  AND  BOOK  MFG.  CO. 
ST.  LOUIS.  MO. 


K 


C 


INTRODUCTORY  NOTICE 

The  question  of  landownership  lies  at  the 
bottom  of  the  whole  social  problem.  So 
many  wrong  notions  are  current  on  owner- 
ship in  general,  and  landownership  in  partic- 
ular, that  I  believe  I  shall  render  the  cause 
of  truth  and  justice  a  real  service  by  re-issu- 
ing in  book-form,  revised  and  enlarged,  the 
following  papers,  originally  contributed  to 
%  the  Catholic  Fortnightly  Review.  They 
contain  the  only  detailed  presentation  of  the 
subject  in  English,  together  with  the  first 
documentary  account  ever  published  of  the 
famous  "McGlynn  case." 
^  The  reader  will  find  upon  perusal  that,  in 
3f  answering  the  question  *'Who  owns  the 
""  land?"  this  little  volume  refutes  not  only 
Agrarian  Socialism,  or  the  Single  Tax  theory 
of  Henry  George,  which  is  of  late  enlisting 
so  many  new  recruits — I  regret  to  say  even 
among  Catholics — but  likewise  the  fundamen- 
3  tal  fallacy  underlying  Socialistic  Commu- 
nism, which  in  the  opinion  of  so  many  far- 
sighted  observers  constitutes  the  greatest  so- 
cial menace  of  the  future. 

^  r>  o  '^  r>r?  Arthur  Preuss. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

I.  Two  Rival  Theories 1 

II.  Common  Landownership  a  Fiction     .     .  9 

III.  Private  Landownership  a  Natural  Right  29 

IV.  Leo  XIII.  on  Private  Property  in  Land  .  41 

V.    Henry  George's  Vain  Attempt  to  Refute 

THE  Pope's  Arguments 53 

VI.     The    Single    Tax,    or    the    "  Natural  " 

System  op  Taxation     .      .      .      .      .      .96 

VII.     Dr.  Edward  McGlynn  and  Henry  George  113 

VIII.     The  Truth  About  Dr.  McGlynn's  Resto- 
ration        138 

IX.    Whose  is  the  Unearned  Land  Value?  .  155 

X.     The  Fundamental  Fallacy  op  Agrarian- 
ism,  Socialism,  and  Communism     ..    ,  178 


TWO   RIVAL,  THEOEIES 

Who  owns  the  land?  To  this  question  two 
answers  are  given :  The  land  is  the  common 
property  of  all  men,  or  the  land  of  each  coun- 
try belongs  to  the  whole  people  of  that  coun- 
try as  their  common  property.  This  is  the 
answer  of  Communists,  Socialists  and  Agra- 
rians. The  rest  of  mankind  deny  this  com- 
mon landownership  and  maintain  that  the 
land  is  owned  in  severalty,  either  by  individ- 
uals or  by  corporations.  The  best  known 
and  most  enthusiastic  advocate  of  common 
landownership  is  Henry  George;  the  most 
prominent  defender  of  private  ownership  in 
land  is  Pope  Leo  XIII. 

The  teachings  of  Henry  George  are  chiefly 
comprised  in  his  Progress  and  Poverty  and 
in  his  Open  Letter  to  Pope  Leo  XI IL;  those 
of  Leo  XIII.  in  his  Encyclical  **Rerum  No- 
varum,"  of  May  15th,  1891. 
1  1 


2  TWO  RIVAL  THEORIES 

Henry  George  considers  private  property 
in  land  to  be  the  ultimate  root  and  source  of 
the  social  evils  which  are  so  keenly  felt  and 
so  bitterly  deplored  by  all.  The  real  cause 
of  the  evil  being  ascertained,  the  true  remedy 
is  obvious :  we  must  abolish  private  property 
in  land  and  substitute  common  ownership. 
But  is  the  abolition  of  private  landownership 
in  harmony  with  natural  justice?  It  is,  be- 
cause private  ownership  of  land  is  essentially 
and  irremediably  wrong  and  unjust. 

How  can  private  property  in  land  be  done 
away  with?  Will  its  abolition  not  cause  a 
disturbance  in  all  social  conditions,  which 
would  be  worse  than  the  misery  of  which  we 
now  complain?  We  need  not  fear:  no  vio- 
lent measure  is  required  to  bring  about  the 
desired  change.  We  will  leave  every  land- 
owner in  the  quiet  ''possession"  of  all  he  has ; 
but  for  the  privilege  of  possessing  land  and 
of  enjoying  the  blessings  of  such  "posses- 
sion, ' '  we  will  make  him  pay  the  State  or  the 
community  a  ''land  tax,"  equal  to  the  profit 
which  accrues  from  land  as  such,  regardless 
of  labor  and  improvement  ("land  rent," 
"land  value").  In  this  manner  we  shall 
really  make  all  land  common  property.  For, 
the  individual  "possessor"  of  a  particular 
piece  or  tract  of  land,  who  pays  the  State 


TWO  RIVAL  THEORIES  3 

for  the  use  of  such  land,  is  in  reality  nothing 
more  than  a  tenant  of  the  State  or  the  com- 
munity. 

This  is,  in  substance,  the  reasoning  of 
Henry  George.  Leo  XIIL,  on  the  other 
hand,  makes  the  lawfulness  and  justice  of  pri- 
vate landownership  the  thesis  which  he  pro- 
poses to  demonstrate  in  the  first  part  of  his 
Encyclical  and,  at  the  end  of  his  argumenta- 
tion, lays  it  down  as  an  essential  basis  for  all 
true  social  reform,  that  private  property  in 
land  must  be  kept  inviolate.  Hence  it  is  clear 
that  the  teachings  of  Henry  George  and  those 
of  Leo  XIIL  are  diametrically  opposed. 
Nevertheless,  it  will  be  interesting  and  in- 
structive to  see  this  opposition  more  in  detail. 
Let  us,  therefore,  review  some  striking  asser- 
tions which  occur  in  the  VII.  book  of  Prog- 
ress and  Poverty,  headed:  ''The  Justice  of 
the  Remedy,"  and  contrast  them  with  the 
corresponding  utterances  of  the  Pontiff.* 

Henry  George  writes:  ''To  affirm  the 
rightfulness  of  property  in  land,  is  to  affirm 
a  claim  which  has  no  warrant  in  nature 
.  .  ."  (p.  242).  "Whatever  may  be  said 
for  the  institution  of  private  property  in 
land,  it  is  plain  that  it  cannot  be  defended  on 

1  Our  quotations  from  Progress  and  Poverty  are  taken 
from  the  4th  edition',  1880,  "  Lovell's  Library." 


4  TWO  RIVAL  THEORIES 

the  score  of  justice"  (p.  243).  "The  recog- 
nition of  individual  proprietorship  of  land 
is  the  denial  of  the  natural  rights  of  other 
individuals — it  is  a  wrong  which  must  show 
itself  in  the  inequitable  division  of  wealth" 
(p.  245). 

The  Pope  writes:  "The  remedy  which 
(Agrarian  Socialists)  propose,  is  manifestly 
repugnant  to  justice,  because  the  right  of 
having  private  property  (in  land  as  well  as 
in  chattels)  is  a  right  granted  to  man  by 
nature."  Again,  "It  must  be  possible  for 
man  to  acquire  as  property  not  only  the  fruits 
of  the  earth,  but  the  very  soil  itself.  .  .  . 
Nature  must  have  given  to  man  a  stable  and 
never-failing  store-house,  from  which  he  may 
expect  never-ending  supplies.  But  such 
never-ending  supplies  nothing  can  afford  ex- 
cept the  earth  with  its  abundance  and  fer- 
tility." 

Henry  George  says :  "  The  Almighty,  who 
created  the  earth  for  man  and  man  for  the 
earth,  has  entailed  it  upon  all  generations  of 
the  children  of  men  by  a  decree  written  upon 
the  constitution  of  all  things — a  decree  which 
no  human  action  can  bar  and  no  prescription 
determine:  Let  the  parchments  be  ever  so 
many,  or  possession  ever  so  long,  natural 
justice  can  recognize  no  right  in  one  man  to 


TWO  RIVAL  THEORIES  5 

the  possession  and  enjoyment  of  land  that  is 
not  equally  the  right  of  all  his  fellows"  (p. 
244). 

The  Pope  declares:  *'The  fact  that  Grod 
has  given  the  earth  for  the  use  and  enjoyment 
of  the  whole  human  race,  does  not  in  the  least 
prevent  the  existence  of  private  possessions. 
For,  if  it  is  said  that  God  gave  the  earth  to 
mankind  in  common,  this  is  not  to  be  under- 
stood as  if  he  wanted  the  common  ownership 
of  the  earth  vested  in  all  men  (non  quod  ejus 
promiscuum  apud  omnes  dominatum  volu- 
erit),  but  because  he  did  not  assign  to  any 
one  the  possession  of  any  particular  portion 
of  the  earth,  leaving  the  actual  distribution 
of  private  possessions  to  men's  industry  and 
to  the  laws  of  peoples."  According  to  the 
Pontiff,  therefore,  the  earth  or  the  soil, 
though  destined  for  the  benefit  of  all,  is  by 
nature  and  originally  neither  owned  by  man- 
kind nor  by  any  individual,  but  is  ownerless, 
**res  nullius";  being  originally  ownerless,  yet 
destined  to  become  the  property  of  somebody 
— for  man,  generally  speaking,  needs  private 
property, — it  may  be  appropriated  or  ac- 
quired in  portions  as  property  by  any  one. 

Henry  George  thus  forestalls  an  objection : 
*  *  But  it  will  be  said :  There  are  improvements 
which  in  time  become  indistinguishable  from 


6  TWO  RIVAL  THEORIES 

the  land  itself.  Very  well;  then  the  title  to 
the  improvements  becomes  blended  with  the 
title  to  the  land;  the  individual  right  is  lost 
in  the  common  right.  It  is  the  greater  that 
swallows  up  the  less,  not  the  less  that  swal- 
lows up  the  greater.  Nature  does  not  pro- 
ceed from  man,  but  man  from  nature,  and  it 
is  into  the  bosom  of  nature  that  he  and  all 
his  works  must  return  again.  ...  As 
for  the  deduction  of  a  complete  and  exclusive 
individual  right  to  land  from  priority  of  oc- 
cupation, that  is,  if  possible,  the  most  absurd 
ground  on  which  landownership  can  be  de- 
fended" (pp.  246  sq.). 

Leo  XIII.  teaches:  "If  a  man  (cultivat- 
ing a  piece  of  ownerless  land)  exerts  both  his 
mental  faculties  and  his  physical  strength 
in  procuring  the  fruits  of  nature,  by  so  doing 
he  makes  his  own  that  portion  of  the  earth 
which  he  cultivates  and  on  which  he  leaves, 
as  it  were,  the  impress,  of  his  personality." 
The  same  would  hold  in  the  case  of  one  who 
would  build  on  ownerless  ground;  "the 
ground  on  which  one  has  built — solum  in  quo 
aedificavit — "  has  thereby  become  his  own 
no  less  than  "the  estate  which  he  has  brought 
under  cultivation — praedium  quod  excoluit." 

Henry  George  affirms :  '  *  The  truth  is,  and 
from  this  truth  there  can  be  no  escape,  that 


TWO  RIVAL  THEORIES  7 

there  is  and  can  be  no  just  title  to  an  exclu- 
sive possession  of  the  soil,  and  that  private 
property  in  land  is  a  bold,  bare,  enormous 
wrong,  like  that  of  chattel  slavery." — ''  It 
is  impossible  for  any  one  to  study  political 
economy,  even  as  at  present  taught,  or  to 
think  at  all  upon  the  production  and  distri- 
bution of  wealth,  without  seeing  that  prop- 
erty in  land  differs  essentially  from  property 
in  things  of  human  production,  and  that  it 
has  no  warrant  in  abstract  justice"  (pp. 
257  sq.). 

Leo  XIII.  denies  an  essential  difference 
between  property  in  land  and  things  of  hu- 
man production.  He  declares  the  one  as  well 
as  the  other  to  be  derived  from  nature  and 
warranted  by  justice.  The  arguments,  more- 
over, for  the  rightfulness  and  necessity  of 
individual  landownership  are,  as  he  explicitly 
states,  so  clear  that  he  is  amazed  to  find 
Agrarian  Socialists  and  others  granting  to  y 
individuals  the  ownership  of  the  fruits  of  the 
earth,  but  not  that  of  the  land  itself.  He  ap- 
provingly quotes  in  favor  of  individual  land- 
ownership  not  only  the  conviction  of  all  ages 
and  the  just  laws  of  commonwealths,  but 
also  the  authority  of  the  divine  law.  He  con- 
cludes with  the  emphatic  sentence:  ''The 
first  and  most  fundamental  principle,  accord- 


y 


8  TWO  RIVAL  THEOEIES 

ingly,  if  we  wish  to  alleviate  the  miserable 
condition  of  the  masses,  must  be  the  inviola- 
bility of  private  property. — Maneat  ergo, 
cum  plebi  sublevatio  quaeritur,  hoc  imprimis 
haberi  fundamenti  instar  oportere,  privatas 
possessiones  inviolate  servandas." 


II 

COMMON   LANDOWNERSHIP  A  FICTION 

At  the  time  when  Henry  George  was  most 
active  in  bringing  his  views  before  the  peo- 
ple, at  home  and  abroad,  there  appeared 
many  able  essays  and  printed  lectures  refut- 
ing his  assertions  and  meeting  his  objections 
against  private  ownership  in  land.  In  the 
New  York  Freeman's  Journal,  from  Febru- 
ary 18th  to  April  28th,  1888,  two  series  of 
articles  by  Rev.  Victor  Cathrein,  S.J.,  were 
published  which  disproved  the  tenets  of 
Agrarian  Socialists  from  an  historical,  eco- 
nomical, and  ethical  standpoint.  About  a 
year  later  they  were  blended  together  in  a 
little  volume  entitled:  The  Champions  of 
Agrarian  Socialism.  A  Refutation  of  Emile 
de  Laveleye  and  Henry  George,  by  Rev.  Vic- 
tor Cathrevn,  S.J.  (Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  Peter 
Paul  and  Bro.,  1889.)  The  late  Mr.  Charles 
Stanton  Devas  called  this  treatise  of  Fr. 
Cathrein 's  **the  classic  against  Henry 
George. ' '  ^ 

1  See  Mr.  Devas'  article  on  "  Agrarianism  "  in  The  Cath- 
olic Encyclopedia,  vol.  I. 

9 


10      COMMON  LANDOWNERSHIP 

In  his  Primitive  Property  (Paris,  1877, 
English  edition,  1878)  Emile  de  Laveleye, 
professor  of  political  economy  in  the  Univer- 
sity of  Liege,  had  attacked  private  landown- 
ership  particularly  from  the  historic  point  of 
view.  He  endeavored  ''to  prove  that  every- 
where and  in  all  nations  only  collective  pos- 
session of  land  (communal  property)  existed 
in  primitive  times,  and  that  individual  owner- 
ship was  developed  rather  late  and  only  by 
degrees.  This  development,  he  says,  was 
brought  about  mostly  through  cunning  and 
deceit,  till  at  length  collective  possession  was 
almost  entirely  done  away  with"  (Cathrein, 
p.  11). 

Henry  George  makes  the  views  of  M.  de 
Laveleye  his  own.  ''Historically,  as  eth- 
ically," he  writes,  "private  property  in  land 
is  robbery.  It  nowhere  springs  from  con- 
tract ;  it  can  nowhere  be  traced  to  perceptions 
of  justice  or  expediency;  it  has  everywhere 
had  its  birth  in  war  and  conquest,  and  in  the 
selfish  use  which  the  cunning  have  made  of 
superstition  and  law."  .  .  .  "  'In  all 
primitive  societies, ' — says  M.  de  Laveleye,  as 
the  result  of  an  investigation  which  leaves  no 
part  of  the  world  unexplored — 'in  all  primi- 
tive societies,  the  soil  was  the  joint  property 
of  the  tribes  and  was  subject  to  periodical 


COMMON  LANDOWNERSHIP       11 

distribution  among  the  families,  so  that  all 
might  live  by  their  labor  as  nature  has  or- 
dained' .  .  .  If  M.  de  Laveleye  be  right 
in  this  conclusion,  and  that  he  is  right  there 
can  be  no  doubt,  how,  it  will  be  asked,  has  the 
reduction  of  land  to  private  ownership  be- 
come so  general?"  {Progress  and  Poverty, 
bk.  vii,  ch.  iv,  pp.  266-268.) 

Father  Cathrein  refutes  M.  de  Laveleye 's 
assertions  in  two  chapters,  one  of  which 
treats  of  property-holding  among  the  Rus- 
sians and  Teutons,  the  other  among  the 
most  ancient  Oriental  nations.  (Cathrein, 
pp.  21-76.)  In  another  chapter  he  exposes 
the  fallacies  contained  in  the  arguments 
which  Henry  George  has  taken  from  politi- 
cal economy  ''to  show  that  private  property 
in  land  necessarily  leads  to  the  impoverish- 
ment of  the  great  bulk  of  mankind."  {Ihid. 
pp.  84-96.)  It  would  lead  us  too  far  to 
enter  upon  the  field  of  history  or  of  politi- 
cal economy,  and  we  must,  accordingly,  refer 
the  reader  to  the  respective  chapters  in 
Cathrein 's  volume  or  to  similar  treatises. 

In  his  Open  Letter  Mr.  George  says  that 
the  reform  he  proposes,  ''like  all  true  re- 
forms, has  both  an  ethical  and  an  economic 
side,"  and  he  thinks  that  "the  ethical  is  the 
more    important    side."    In   Progress    and 


12       COMMON  LANDOWNERSHIP 

Poverty  he  likewise  lays  greater  stress  on  the 
justice  than  on  the  expediency  of  his  pro- 
posals. ''When  it  is  proposed,"  he  writes, 
* '  to  abolish  private  property  in  land,  the  first 
question  that  will  arise  is  that  of  justice. 
.  .  .  That  alone  is  wise  which  is  just ;  that 
alone  is  enduring  which  is  right.  In  the  nar- 
row scale  of  individual  actions  and  individ- 
ual life  this  truth  may  be  often  obscured,  but 
in  the  wider  field  of  national  life  it  every- 
where stands  out.  I  bow  to  this  arbitrament, 
and  accept  this  text.  ...  If  private 
property  in  land  be  just,  then  is  the  remedy 
I  propose  a  false  one;  if,  on  the  contrary, 
private  property  in  land  be  unjust,  then  is 
this  remedy  the  true  one."  (Book  viii,  eh. 
i,  p.  239.) 

Why,  therefore,  does  Henry  George,  from 
the  standpoint  of  ethics,  reject  individual 
landownership  as  unjust?  His  chief,  or 
rather  only,  argument  is  thus  proposed  in 
Progress  and  Poverty: 

''What  constitutes  the  right  basis  of  prop- 
erty? What  is  it  that  enables  a  man  to  justly 
say  of  a  thing,  'It  is  mine!'  From  what 
springs  the  sentiment  which  acknowledges  his 
exclusive  right  as  against  all  the  world?  Is 
it  not,  primarily,  the  right  of  a  man  to  him- 


COMMON  LANDOWNERSHIP       13 

self,  to  the  use  of  his  own  powers,  to  the  en- 
joyment of  the  fruits  of  his  own  exertions? 
.  .  .  As  a  man  belongs  to  himself,  so  his 
labor  when  put  in  concrete  form  belongs  to 
him. 

*'And  for  this  reason,  that  which  a  man 
makes  or  produces  is  his  own,  as  against  all 
the  world — to  enjoy  or  to  destroy,  to  use,  to 
exchange,  or  to  give.  No  one  else  can  right- 
fully claim  it,  and  his  exclusive  right  to  it 
involves  no  wrong  to  any  one  else.  Thus 
there  is  to  everything  produced  by  human 
exertion  a  clear  and  indisputable  title  to  ex- 
clusive possession  and  enjoyment,  which  is 
perfectly  consistent  with  justice,  as  it  de- 
scends from  the  original  producer,  in  whom 
it  is  vested  by  natural  law.  The  pen  with 
which  I  am  writing  is  justly  mine.  No  other 
human  being  can  rightfully  lay  claim  to  it, 
for  in  me  is  the  title  of  the  producers  who 
made  it.  It  has  become  mine,  because  trans- 
ferred to  me  by  the  stationer,  to  whom  it  was 
transferred  by  the  importer,  who  obtained  the 
exclusive  right  to  it  by  transfer  from  the 
manufacturer,  in  whom,  by  the  same  process 
of  purchase,  vested  the  rights  of  those  who 
dug  the  material  out  of  the  ground  and 
shaped  it  into  a  pen.    Thus  my  exclusive 


14      COMMON  LANDOWNEESHIP 

right  of  ownership  in  the  pen  springs  from 
the  natural  right  of  the  individual  to  the  use 
of  his  own  faculties. 

''Now,  this  is  not  only  the  original  source 
from  which  all  ideas  of  exclusive  ownership 
arise  .  .  .  but  it  is  necessarily  the  only 
source.  There  can  be  to  the  ownership  of 
anything  no  rightful  title  which  is  not  derived 
from  the  title  of  the  producer  and  does  not 
rest  upon  the  natural  right  of  the  man  to  him- 
self. There  can  be  no  other  rightful  title, 
because  (1st)  there  is  no  other  natural  right 
from  which  any  other  title  can  be  derived, 
and  (2nd)  because  the  recognition  of  any 
other  title  is  inconsistent  with  and  destruc- 
tive of  this.  .  .  ."  {Progress  and  Pov- 
erty, bk.  vii,  ch.  i,  p.  240.) 

In  this  form  the  argument  is  ably  and  com- 
pletely answered  by  Father  Cathrein.  He 
first  sums  it  up  in  the  following  syllogism: 
*'A  single  individual  can  call  only  that  his 
own  which  is  the  produce  of  his  labor ;  now, 
the  soil  is  not  the  produce  of  his  labor ;  hence 
he  can  not  call  the  soil  his  own."  He  denies 
the  major  proposition  and  proves  that  ''labor 
is  neither  the  original  nor  the  exclusive  source 
of  proprietorship"  (Cathrein,  pp.  100  sqq.). 

Mr.  George  advances  the  same  argument 
in  his  Open  Letter  to  the  Pope  as  follows : 


COMMON  LANDOWNERSHIP       15 

**As  to  the  right  of  ownership  we  hold: 
That— 

"Being  created  individuals,  with  individ- 
ual wants  and  powers,  men  are  individually 
entitled  (subject  of  course  to  the  moral  obli- 
gations that  arise  from  such  relations  as  that 
of  the  family)  to  the  use  of  their  own  pow- 
ers and  the  enjoyment  of  the  results. 

' '  There  thus  arises,  anterior  to  human  law, 
and  deriving  its  validity  from  the  law  of  God, 
a  right  of  private  ownership  in  things  pro- 
duced by  labor — a  right  that  the  possessor 
may  transfer,  but  of  which  to  deprive  him 
without  his  will  would  be  theft. 

''This  right  of  property,  originating  in  the 
right  of  the  individual  to  himself,  is  the  only 
full  and  complete  right  of  property.  It  at- 
taches to  things  produced  by  labor,  but  can 
not  attach  to  things  created  by  God. 

*  *  Thus,  if  a  man  takes  a  fish  from  the  ocean 
he  acquires  a  right  of  property  in  that  fish, 
which  exclusive  right  he  may  transfer  by  sale 
or  by  gift.  But  he  can  not  obtain  a  similar 
right  of  property  in  the  ocean,  so  that  he  may 
sell  it  or  give  it  or  forbid  others  to  use  it." 

The  reader  will  have  noticed  that  this  rea- 
soning is  the  same  as  that  quoted  above  from 
Progress  and  Poverty.  The  answer  to  the 
argument  is  obvious  and  is  suggested  by  the 


16      COMMON  LANDOWNERSHIP 

very  examples  with  which  Henry  George  illus- 
trates his  theory.  Of  course,  no  sane  man 
who  admits  individual  landownership,  claims 
or  defends  right  of  property  in  the  ocean 
or  the  atmosphere  or  the  sun,  although  *'to 
men,"  i.  e.,  to  Mr.  George  and  his  followers, 
ocean,  air,  sunshine,  and  soil,  are  all  'in- 
volved in  the  single  term  land"!  Need  we 
remind  our  readers  of  the  fact  that  the  ocean, 
the  atmosphere,  and  the  sun,  just  as  the  moon 
and  the  milky  way  and  the  whole  firmament, 
are  physically  insusceptible  of  being  taken 
possession  of  or  appropriated  either  by  an 
individual  man  or  even  by  the  whole  of  man- 
kind? 

Our  answer,  then,  to  Mr.  George's  argu- 
ment is  obvious  and  brief :  his  theory  is  self- 
contradictory  and  does  away  with  all  prop- 
erty, not  only  in  the  soil,  but  in  everything 
else. 

If  a  Henry  George  man  rows  out  into  the 
ocean  and  is  so  lucky  as  to  ''take  from  the 
ocean"  a  fine  fish,  he  can  not  call  it  "his," 
he  does  not  "acquire  a  right  of  property  in 
that  fish,"  for  the  simple  reason  that  he  did 
not  produce  it !  All  fishes,  whether  living  in 
the  ocean,  or  in  rivers  or  lakes,  belong  to 
the  "things  created  by  God,"  not  to  the 
"things  produced  by  labor";  but  the  right 


COMMON  LANDOWNERSHIP       17 

of  property,  Mr.  George  has  just  assured  us, 
*'can  not  attach  to  things  created  by  God." 
Again,  if  he  would  go  hunting,  and  kill  a  hare 
or  a  duck  or  a  grizzly  bear,  he  could  not 
own  it,  for  the  same  simple  reason  that  he 
did  not  produce  it.  And  if  the  whole  popula- 
tion of  the  United  States,  individually  or  in 
a  body,  would  go  fishing  or  hunting,  the  same 
would  hold  as  to  what  they  would  catch;  for 
*'the  right  of  property  can  not  attach  to 
things  created  by  God."  Nor  can  a  Henry 
George  man  own  the  pen  with  which  he  writes^ 
just  as  Mr.  George  himself  did  not  and  could 
not  own  the  pen  he  was  writing  with.  How 
so?  Because  the  title  by  which  he  held  it, 
was  essentially  vitiated.  Mr.  George  says, 
he  bought  the  pen  from  the  stationer.  True, 
but  the  stationer  could  not  sell  it,  since  he  did 
not  own  it!  He  had  purchased  it  from  an- 
other who  could  not  sell  it,  viz.,  the  importer. 
The  importer,  indeed,  had  got  it  from  the 
manufacturer;  but  the  manufacturer  himself 
could  not  dispose  of  it,  since  he  did  not  own 
it;  for  he  in  his  turn  had  got  it  from  men 
who  had  no  right  to  give  it  to  him,  viz.,  **  those 
who  dug  the  material  out  of  the  ground  and 
shaped  it  into  a  pen".  Here  lies  the  radical 
fault  that  invalidates  all  further  transactions. 
It  is  not  to  be  overlooked  that,  according 


18       COMMON  LANDOWNERSHIP 

to  the  common  ownership  theory,  all  raw  ma- 
terial is  the  common  property  of  mankind  at 
large.  Now,  in  what  way  can  something  that 
belongs  to  all  men  become  the  property  of 
one  or  several  individuals,  to  the  exclusion 
of  all  others  1  Only  in  this  way  that  the  pre- 
vious ownership  vested  in  all  men  ceases  or 
is  destroyed,  and  that  in  its  stead  a  new  own- 
ership arises,  vested  in  one  or  several  in- 
dividuals and  based  on  a  new  title.  But  how 
shall  the  common  ownership  in  a  certain  raw 
material  cease  when  one  or  several  dig  it 
out  of  the  ground?  Does,  perhaps,  mankind 
by  common  consent  transfer  it  to  those  in- 
dividual men?  Such  consent  does  not  exist 
and  therefore  can  not  transfer  property.  Or 
does,  perhaps,  the  digging  and  handling  of 
the  material  by  some  individual  or  individ- 
uals destroy  the  proprietorship  vested  in  all 
men  and  change  the  common  property,  with- 
out the  consent  of  its  natural  owners,  i.  e., 
mankind,  into  private  property?  Such  an 
assumption  would  be  absurd.  As  well  might 
a  pickpocket  be  entitled  to  call  his  own  what 
he  cleverly  filches  from  the  pocket  of  his  un- 
wary fellow-man?  As  an  occupation  or  in- 
dustry pocket-picking  does  not  differ  essen- 
tially from  digging  raw  material  out  of  the 


COMMON  LANDOWNERSHIP       19 

ground  or  taking  fish  from  the  ocean.  But 
as  to  the  judicial  effect  to  be  produced,  there 
is  a  great  difference  between  the  two  cases: 
in  the  former  only  an  acquired  proprietor- 
ship of  an  individual,  in  the  latter  the  natural 
proprietorship  vested  in  all  men  is  to 
be  destroyed.  Can  reason  approve  the  ap- 
propriation of  raw  material  by  those  who  dig 
it  out  of  the  ground  and  condemn  the  appro- 
priation of  his  neighbor's  purse  by  the  pick- 
pocket ? 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  none  of  those 
through  whose  hands  the  pens  passed  until 
they  reached  the  author  of  Progress  and 
Poverty  did  really  own  them,  and  conse- 
quently Henry  George  did  not  own  them 
either;  he  accordingly,  wrote  that  famous 
work  and  all  his  other  books  with  pens  that 
did  not  belong  to  him!  But  the  ink  and 
paper,  too,  which  he  used,  and  the  chairs  on 
which  he  sat,  and  the  clothes  he  had  on — and 
all  other  things  which  he  called  his  own,  were 
in  reality  not  his  own.  For  what  we  have 
said  of  the  pen,  holds  equally  of  all  other 
material  objects.  Each  and  every  one  of 
them  consists  of  some  material  which  comes 
ultimately  from  nature,  is  created  by  God, 
and  therefore  belongs  to  mankind  as  the  com- 


20       COMMON  LANDOWNERSHIP 

mon  property  of  all,  that  can  never  be  ap- 
propriated by  any  individual  to  the  exclusion 
of  all  others. 

The  theory  of  common  ownership,  there- 
fore, is  destructive  of  all  private  proprietor- 
ship in  movables.  But  its  destructive  force 
reaches  still  farther:  it  makes  the  common 
ownership  of  land  itself  impossible  I 

All  actual  ownership  must  rest  on  a  clear, 
valid  title  by  which  the  object  in  question  is 
understood  to  belong  rightfully  to  such  or 
such  a  person  or  collection  of  persons.  There 
are  various  titles  by  which  property  is  trans- 
ferred from  one  owner  to  another,  such  as 
donation,  purchase,  and  the  like.  These 
titles  suppose  an  object  already  belonging  to 
some  owner;  hence  they  necessarily  presup- 
pose another  title.  Among  all  the  valid  titles 
of  ownership  there  must  manifestly  be  one 
which  does  not  presuppose  any  other,  but  is 
rather  presupposed  by  all  others.  This  ab- 
solutely first  title  is  called  the  primitive  or 
original  title  of  ownership. 

Henry  George  insists  that  **  productive  la- 
bor" is  the  original  title  of  ownership. 
' '  That  which  a  man  makes  or  produces  is  his 
own,  as  against  all  the  world";  and  ** there 
can  be  to  the  ownership  of  anything  no  right- 
ful title  which  is  not  derived  from  the  title 


COMMON  LANDOWNERSHIP       21 

of  the  producer";  ''this  right  of  property" 
is  '  *  the  only  full  and  complete  right  of  prop- 
erty. It  attaches  to  things  produced  by  la- 
bor, but  can  not  attach  to  things  created  by 
God." 

By  what  title,  then,  we  ask,  do  the  entire 
population  of  the  State  of  New  York  own  the 
land  of  the  Empire  State!  Have  they  pro- 
duced it?  No  more  than  a  farmer  produces 
the  land  which  he  cultivates.  Hence  they  do 
not  and  can  not  own  the  territory  of  their 
State.  For  the  same  reason  the  entire  na- 
tion does  not  and  can  not  own  the  territory 
of  the  United  States. 

But,  one  might  say,  the  people  of  that 
State  live  there  and  have  been  living  there 
for  many,  many  years.  We  answer:  mere 
living  in  a  place  or  district  is  no  title  of 
ownership  to  that  place  or  district.  Besides, 
by  what  right  can  the  people  of  the  Empire 
State  exclude  another  people  or  nation  from 
living  there,  if  they  choose?  Suppose  10,- 
000,000  Chinese  would  leave  their  native 
country  in  order  to  settle  in  the  State  of  New 
York.  Could  they  be  excluded  on  the  com- 
mon ownership  principle?  Could  they  not 
rightly  say:  ''This  fair  land  belongs  to  us 
as  well  as  to  you;  you  have  lived  here  long 
enough,  we  want  a  chance  to  try  our  fortune 


22       COMMON  LANDOWNERSHIP 

in  this  part  of  the  western  hemisphere.  In 
making  this  demand  we  only  claim  what  is 
ours.  If  you  wish,  you  may  migrate  to 
the  regions  we  have  vacated.  The  great 
improvements  we  made  there  will,  at  least 
in  part,  compensate  you  for  the  improve- 
ments you  have  made  here;  what  is  wanting 
we  shall  make  good  in  the  course  of  time,  for 
we  are  sure  of  our  prosperity  in  this  beautiful 
and  fertile  country.  But  we  insist  on  our 
right  which  nature  gave  us. ' '  What  answer, 
we  ask,  could  a  Henry  George  man,  as  gov- 
ernor of  New  York,  for  instance,  give  to 
these  ten  million  Chinese  immigrants?  None 
but  this :  ' '  You  are  right,  my  friends.  I  am 
the  last  to  check  or  discourage  your  efforts 
towards  greater  prosperity.  You  show  that 
you  are  an  energetic,  enterprising,  progres- 
sive people.  Whosoever  hinders  you  from 
possessing  and  enjoying  your  lawful  prop- 
erty wrongs  you  grievously ! " 

The  reasoning  of  these  fictitious  Chinamen 
on  the  common  ownership  principle  is  evi- 
dently correct.  But  that  principle  itself,  viz., 
that  the  whole  earth  is  the  common  property 
of  all  men,  is  false,  because  there  is  no  valid 
title  for  such  ownership.  As  little  as  an  in- 
dividual or  a  particular  nation,  has  mankind 
at  large  produced  the  earth.    The  title  of 


COMMON  LANDOWNERSHIP       23 

production,  accordingly,  cannot  be  appealed 
to,  and  this  settles  the  matter  against  the 
Henry  George  system. 

But,  perhaps,  some  other  title  can  be  found, 
which  proves  said  ownership  to  be  vested  in 
all  men,  perchance  even  that  which  Henry 
George  denounces  as  'Hhe  most  absurd"  of 
all  titles, — occupation  or  occupancy.  This 
title,  however,  which  is  admitted  by  all  who 
defend  private  landownership,  does  not  exist 
as  applied  to  the  earth  or  to  mankind  at 
large.  Neither  has  the  whole  earth  ever 
been  taken  by  occupancy,  nor  has  the  whole 
of  mankind  ever  appropriated  anything  by 
primitive  occupation.  All  appropriations  by 
occupancy  do  and  can  only  take  place  as  to 
particular  and  limited  portions  of  the  earth 
and  by  individual  men  or  particular  families 
or  groups  of  men  or,  at  the  utmost,  by  partic- 
ular tribes  or  nations.  Occupancy  is  out  of 
question  when  we  speak  of  the  ownership  of 
the  whole  earth  being  vested  in  all  men. 

There  is  only  one  possibility  left:  a  grant 
of  the  Almighty  by  which  He  gave  the  whole 
earth  to  the  whole  human  race  as  their  com- 
mon property.  Such  a  grant,  indeed,  would 
be  a  valid  title.  It  seems  that  Henry  George 
believed  in  such  a  grant.  For  in  his  Open 
Letter  he  quotes  approvingly  the  following 


24       COMMON  LANDOWNERSHIP 

passage  from  a  pastoral  letter  of  Dr.  Thomas 
Nulty,  late  Bishop  of  Meath,  Ireland :  ^ 
**God  was  perfectly  free  in  the  act  by  which 
He  created  us;  but  having  created  us  He 
bound  himself  by  that  act  to  provide  us 
with  the  means  necessary  for  our  subsistence. 
The  land  is  the  only  source  of  this  kind  now 
known  to  us.  The  land,  therefore,  of  every 
country  is  the  common  property  of  the  peo- 
ple of  that  country,  because  its  real  owner, 
the  Creator  who  made  it,  has  transferred  it 
as  a  voluntary  gift  to  them.  '  Terram  autem 
dedit  filiis  hominum.'  "  ["  The  earth  he  has 
given  to  the  children  of  men."  Ps.  113,  In 
exitu  Israel,  v.  16.] — Again  Mr.  George 
writes:  ''Everywhere  [in  the  Scriptures] 
land  is  treated  as  the  free  bounty  of  God, 
'the  land  which  the  Lord  thy  God  gave 
thee.'  " — He  might  have  added  in  confirma- 
tion the  following  passages  from  Genesis : 

"And  God  blessed  them,  saying:  Increase 
and  multiply,  and  fill  the  earth,  and  subdue 
it,  and  rule  over  the  fishes  of  the  sea,  and  the 
fowls  of  the  air,  and  all  living  creatures  that 
move  upon  the  earth.  And  God  said:  Be- 
hold I  have  given  you  every  herb  bearing 
seed  upon  the  earth,  and  all  trees  that  have 

1  Letter  Addressed  to  the  Clergy  and  Laity  of  the  Diocese 
of  Meath,  Ireland,  April  2,  1881. 


COMMON  LANDOWNERSHIP       25 

in  themselves  seed  of  their  own  kind,  to  be 
your  meat:  and  to  all  beasts  of  the  earth, 
and  to  every  fowl  of  the  air,  and  to  all  that 
move  upon  the  earth,  and  wherein  there  is 
life,  that  they  may  have  to  feed  upon.  And 
it  was  so  done."      (Gen.  i,  28-30.) 

**And  God  blessed  Noe  and  his  sons.  And 
he  said  to  them:  Increase  and  multiply,  and 
fill  the  earth.  And  let  the  fear  and  dread  of 
you  be  upon  all  the  beasts  of  the  earth,  and 
upon  all  the  fowls  of  the  air,  and  all  that 
move  upon  the  earth:  all  the  fishes  of  the 
sea  are  delivered  into  your  hand.  And 
every  thing  that  moveth  and  liveth  shall  be 
meat  for  you:  even  as  the  green  herbs  have 
I  delivered  them  all  to  you."     (Gen.  ix,  1-3.) 

Leaving  aside  the  Israelites,  to  whom  **the 
land  of  Canaan"  was  given  by  the  Lord  in  a 
special  manner,  not  with  common,  but  with 
private  and  inheritable  landed  property 
(Num.  xxxiii,  51-54;  xxxvi,  7-10),  it  is  easily 
Seen  that  the  texts  we  have  adduced  contain 
indeed  a  general  grant  of  the  whole  earth  to 
mankind.  The  earth  is  assigned  to  man  as 
his  dwelling  place  and  the  storehouse  whence 
he  is  to  draw  what  he  needs :  * '  Fill  the  earth 
and  subdue  it,"  ''rule"  over  the  irrational 
creatures,  all  are  at  your  disposal;  animals 
as  well  as  vegetables  shall  be  '*  your  meat." 


26       COMMON  LANDOWNERSHIP 

But  does  the  grant  also  specify  in  detail  the 
rule  or  dominion  it  bestows  on  man?  Does 
it  convey  actual  ownership  in  the  objects  men- 
tioned or  only  the  power  or  authority  of  ac- 
quiring property ;  again,  in  either  of  the  two 
alternatives  is  common  ownership  meant  or 
private^  Evidently  the  sacred  text  does  not 
indicate  in  which  of  these  various  meanings 
the  original  grant  is  to  be  understood.  It  is 
as  if  God  had  said:  The  whole  earth  is  for 
you,  that  you  may  be  provided  for ;  as  to  the 
manner  how  to  use  it,  you  have  the  light  of 
reason;  follow  it,  it  is  a  sure  guide.  This 
and  nothing  else  is  the  meaning  of  the  pas- 
sages quoted.  It  is  the  truth,  which  we  also 
understand  by  the  mere  light  of  reason,  that 
the  earth  is  made  for  man  to  enable  him  to 
live  and  perfect  himself  according  to  the  will 
of  God  and  thus  to  attain  his  ultimate  end  in 
the  life  to  come. 

What,  then,  does  reason  tell  us  about  the 
use  of  the  great  storehouse  of  nature  whence 
we  are  to  be  provided  for  suitably  and  se- 
curely in  this  mortal  life  of  hardship  and  toil  ? 
It  tells  us  that  each  man  has  his  individual 
needs  which  cannot  be  satisfied  except  by  in- 
dividual objects ;  the  same  individual  objects, 
however,  cannot  satisfy,  as  a  rule,  the  needs 
of  several ;  hence  man  must  have  the  right  to 


COMMON  LANDOWNERSHIP       27 

acquire  what  he  needs,  so  that  he  can  exclude 
others  from  the  selfsame  objects,  and  that 
permanently,  because  man's  needs  are  per- 
manent; in  other  words,  he  must  have  the 
right  to  acquire  what  he  needs  as  his  private 
and  exclusive  property.  The  things,  how- 
ever, which  man  needs  not  only  for  his  bare 
existence,  but  for  a  suitable  development  and 
advancement  also  of  his  higher,  intellectual 
and  moral,  nature,  are  very  many  and  among 
them  some  real  estate  is  for  most  men  an  in- 
dispensable condition  of  having  a  decent 
home,  raising  a  prosperous  and  happy  family, 
and  enjoying  a  stable  position  in  the  vicissi- 
tudes of  life.  To  acquire  private  property 
in  land,  therefore,  must  be  no  less  m  his 
power  than  to  acquire  movable  property; 
else  he  would  not  be  provided  for  suitably 
and  securely.  We  say  "to  acquire  private 
property."  For  it  is  evident  that  no  par- 
ticular object  and  no  particular  portion 
of  land  is  by  nature  in  any  particular 
manner  connected  with  a  particular  indi- 
vidual, as  is  necessarily  the  case  when 
one  can  say:  This  is  mine!  Hence  God  has 
not  directly  given  to  the  individual  man  any 
actual  property.  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
man  needs  private  property,  in  movables  and 
immovables.    God  must,  therefore,  have  in- 


28       COMMON  LANDOWNERSHIP 

vested  him  with  the  right  of  appropriating — 
by  occupancy — whatever  he  deems  fit  to  sat- 
isfy his  various  wants,  out  of  the  things  of- 
fered by  nature  and  not  yet  appropriated  by 
others.  Whosoever  exercises  his  general 
right  of  acquiring  property  becomes  thereby 
an  actual  owner.  Where  there  is  no  oppor- 
tunity for  appropriation  by  occupancy — this 
supposes  ownerless  objects — reason  points  to 
other  ways  of  acquiring  property,  viz.,  labor 
and  the  various  transactions  by  which  prop- 
erty is  transferred  from  one  owner  to  an- 
other. 

This,  then,  is  what  natural  reason  teaches 
concerning  property.  It  demands  and  sanc- 
tions private  property  in  land  as  well  as  in 
chattels,  and  thereby  disproves  the  common 
ownership  advocated  by  Agrarians,  Social- 
ists, and  Communists.  Accordingly,  not 
common  actual  ownership  vested  in  all  men, 
but  the  establishment  of  private  ownership 
through  man's  activity,  under  the  guidance 
of  practical  reason,  was  the  purpose  for 
which  the  Creator  made  that  general  grant 
of  the  earth  to  mankind ;  this  we  know  by  the 
light  of  reason  and  the  word  of  God  in  Holy 
Scripture.  The  common  ownership  of  the 
earth  is,  and  remains,  a  mere  fiction. 


in 

PRIVATE  LANDOWNEESHIP  A  NATUEAL  RIGHT 

Before  the  year  in  which  he  had  ascended 
the  papal  throne  came  to  a  close,  Leo  XIII. 
raised  his  voice  in  his  Encyclical  Letter 
''Quod  Apostolici  Muneris,"  December  28, 
1878,  to  denounce  the  errors  and  pernicious 
schemes  of  Socialists,  Communists  and  Nihi- 
lists. He  pointed  out,  in  particular,  that 
these  enemies  of  human  society,  ''enticed  by 
the  greed  of  temporal  goods  .  .  .  attack 
the  right  of  property  sanctioned  by  the  natu- 
ral law — ^jus  proprietatis  naturali  lege 
sancitum  impugnant.*'  To  their  vagaries  he 
opposed  the  teaching  of  the  Church  in  the 
following  words: 

"Catholic  wisdom,  resting  on  the  precepts 
of  the  natural  and  divine  law,  has  wonder- 
fully provided  for  public  and  domestic  tran- 
quillity by  her  teachings  on  the  right  of 
property  and  the  division  of  those  goods 
which  are  suited  to  the  necessities  and  con- 
veniences of  life.  Socialists  decry  the  right 
of  property  as  a  human  invention  opposed  to 

29 


30      PRIVATE  LANDOWNERSHIP 

the  natural  equality  of  men.  .  .  .  The 
Church,  on  the  contrary,  acting  more  wisely 
and  profitably  by  far,  acknowledges  among 
men  who  are  naturally  so  different  from  one 
another  in  their  powers  of  body  and  mind,  an 
inequality  of  temporal  possessions  also,  and 
ordains  that  the  right  of  (private)  property 
and  dominion  springing  from  nature  itself  be 
kept  inviolate  and  intact.  Ecclesia  .  .  . 
inaequalitatem  .  .  .  etiam  in  bonis  possi- 
dendis  agnoscit  et  jus  proprietatis  ac  dominii, 
ab  ipsa  natura  profectum,  intactum  cuilibet 
et  inviolatum  esse  jubet." 

According  to  the  Encyclical,  therefore,  the 
right  of  holding  private  property,  in  land  as 
well  as  in  chattels,  is  *'a  right  sanctioned 
(i.  e.,  established)  by  the  natural  law,"  a 
right  "which  springs  from  nature  itself,"  in 
one  word,  it  is  a  natural  right. 

Still  more  explicit  is  the  Pope's  teaching 
concerning  property  in  his  Encyclical  ''Re- 
rum  Novarum,"  of  May  15th,  1891.  In  the 
first  part  he  treats  explicitly  of  landowner- 
ship  and  in  the  second  of  the  remedy  for  so- 
cial evils.  He  speaks  not  merely  as  a  pri- 
vate teacher  or  a  philosopher,  but  as  the 
teacher  of  the  Universal  Church.  "In  the 
present  letter,"  he  writes,  "the  responsibility 
of  the  Apostolic  office  urges  Us  to  treat  the 


PRIVATE  LANDOWNERSHIP      31 

whole  question  [the  condition  of  the  work- 
ing classes]  of  set  purpose  and  in  detail,  in 
order  that  no  misapprehension  may  exist  as 
to  the  principles  which  truth  and  justice  dic- 
tate for  its  settlement."  And  again  in  the 
beginning  of  the  second  part:  "We  ap- 
proach the  subject  with  confidence  and  in  the 
exercise  of  the  rights  which  manifestly  be- 
long to  Us,  for  no  practical  solution  of  this 
question  will  be  found  apart  from  the  inter- 
vention of  religion  and  of  the  Church.  It  is 
We  who  are  the  chief  guardian  of  religion 
and  the  chief  dispenser  of  what  pertains  to 
the  Church,  and  We  must  not  by  silence  neg- 
lect the  duty  incumbent  on  Us."  Leo's 
teaching,  therefore,  is  the  teaching  of  the 
Church,  and  consequently  the  subject  of  land- 
ownership  can  for  a  Catholic  no  longer  be  an 
open  question. 

But  we  are  at  present  chiefly  concerned 
with  the  philosophical  arguments  on  which 
the  institution  of  private  landownership 
rests.  These  arguments  are  masterfully  de- 
veloped in  the  first  part  of  the  papal  letter. 
We  shall  first  review  them,  with  some  explan- 
ations, in  order  to  bring  out  their  full  mean- 
ing; afterwards  we  shall  give  the  complete 
text  of  this  part  of  the  Encyclical  in  a  faith- 
ful translation. 


32      PRIVATE  LANDOWNERSHIP 

The  Pope  begins  by  making  four  distinct 
charges  against  the  Socialist  scheme  of  sub- 
stituting common  for  private  landownership : 
first,  ''it  harms  the  working  classes  them- 
selves; moreover,  it  is  most  unjust,  since  it 
does  violence  to  lawful  proprietors;  besides, 
it  perverts  the  functions  of  the  State,  and, 
finally,  it  produces  universal  confusion." 
Then  he  develops  these  four  charges,  one 
after  the  other,  but  especially  the  second,  the 
most  important  of  all. 

The  first  charge  is  an  obvious,  common- 
sense  argument — argumentum  ad  hominem — 
which  ought  to  silence  all  Socialist  reform- 
ers who  so  loudly  and  incessantly  parade  as 
the  saviors  of  the  working  classes  and  the 
improvers  of  their  condition.  ''Why,"  a  la- 
borer might  truly  say,  "you  promise  to  bet- 
ter my  condition  and  deprive  me  with  one 
stroke  of  the  very  possibility  of  acquiring  a 
home  of  my  own !  What  do  I  wish  for  more 
than  to  have  my  own  home,  a  substantial 
house  on  my  own  ground,  with  my  own  gar- 
den and  lawn,  where,  after  a  day's  work,  I 
can  rest  and  enjoy  myself  with  my  wife  and 
children?"  "What  happier  life,"  another 
might  say,  "than  that  of  a  farmer  on  his  own 
estate,  who  raises  his  family  in  the  healthful 
occupations  of  country  life?    He  can  improve 


PRIVATE  LANDOWNEESHIP      33 

and  extend  his  property  with  his  children's 
aid  and  give  them,  when  they  once  settle 
down  for  themselves,  similar  homes,  where 
they  may  continue  the  same  life  of  peace  and 
contentment.  Such  has  been  for  years  my 
highest  ambition." 

To  both  these  men  our  modern  reformers 
would  say:  ''Give  up  your  plans;  they  are 
idle  dreams.  Private  property  in  land  is 
to  be  abolished.  You  may  have  a  house 
somewhere,  you  may  have  a  dwelling  and 
stables  and  cattle  on  some  farm — but  all  the 
land  will  belong  to  all.  This  is  the  new  or- 
der I ' ' — ' '  Thus  we  should  in  fact  be  only  ten- 
ants of  the  commonwealth,"  the  men  would 
answer,  ''and  this  you  call  happiness  and  in- 
dependence? We  want  to  dispose  of  our 
earnings  as  we  please,  investing  them  in 
land,  which  is  the  surest  means  for  an  inde- 
pendent and  happy  life  here  below.  We  pre- 
fer the  old  order.    Let  well  enough  alone ! "  ^ 

The  Pontiff  passes  to  the  principal  and 
"  graver  charge,  the  manifest  injustice  of 
the  scheme,  since  the  right  of  having  prop- 

1  Cf.  Socialism:  Its  Theoretical  Basis  and  Practical  Ap- 
plication. By  Victor  Cathrein,  8.J.  Revised  and  Enlarged 
by  V.  F.  Geitelmann,  8.J.  (New  York,  Benziger  Brothers, 
1904),  Conclusion  I.  Pp.  361-363,  where  we  read:  "But 
to  one  point  we  must  call  attention.  Even  if  Socialism 
were  practicable,  the  great  mass  of  farmers  and  artisans 
who  are  at  present  the  objects  of  the  most  tender  solicitude 
3 


34      PRIVATE  LANDOWNERSHIP 

erty  [in  land]  is  a  right  granted  to  man  by 
nature."  This  argument  is  exposed  at  great 
length  in  the  papal  document.  It  contains 
two  distinct  proofs  for  the  lawfulness  of  pri- 
vate landownership.  For  in  two  ways  it  can 
be  shown  that  the  right  of  having  private 
property  in  land  is  ''granted  to  man  by  na- 
ture": first,  from  man's  rational  nature, 
and,  secondly,  from  the  nature  of  the  soil. 

To  sketch  the  first  proof,  it  is  evident  that 
man  has  the  duty  to  preserve  and  perfect 
himself  in  this  life  in  order  to  attain  his  ulti- 
mate end.  For  this  he  needs  many  material 
things  exclusively  for  his  own  use,  since  the 
same  things  for  the  most  part  cannot  serve 
the  purposes  of  several.  He  must,  therefore, 
have  the  right  to  acquire  material  goods  in 
such  a  manner  that  in  their  use  he  is  inde- 
pendent of  all  others  and  can  exclude  all 
others  from  using  them;  and  that  not  only 
for  the  present  or  for  a  short  time,  but  per- 
manently. 

For  man  is  endowed  with  reason  by  which 

on  the  part  of  Socialists  would  have  nothing  to  gain,  but 
everything  to  lose.  Independent  farmers,  artisans,  busi- 
ness men  are  out  of  question  in  the  Socialist  system.  Every 
man  would  but  be  a  member  of  an  immense  State  ma- 
chinery, enjoying  indeed  equal  rights  with  all  the  others, 
but  utterly  bereft  of  independence  in  the  matter  of  gaining 
his  livelihood.  It  were  well  for  the  independent  farmer 
and  artisan  to  bear  this  in  mind." 


PRIVATE  LANDOWNERSHIP      35 

he  also  foresees  his  future  needs  and  is  en- 
abled to  provide  for  them  in  advance  and  in 
a  secure  and  more  abundant  manner.  More- 
over, his  natural  prudence  urges  him  actually 
to  take  these  precautions  against  the  uncer- 
tainties of  life  and  to  procure  the  means  for 
greater  comfort  and  advancement.  Hence 
he  must  have  the  right  to  acquire  exterior 
things  permanently  as  his  own,  i.  e.,  to  have 
stable  private  property.  But  where  is  that 
exterior  object  which  affords  man  in  the  most 
secure  manner  what  he  needs  for  his  suitable 
subsistence  and  improvement?  It  is  the 
earth,  which  by  its  abundance  and  fertility  is 
a  never-failing  storehouse  of  supplies. 
Hence  he  must  have  the  right  to  acquire  as 
his  own  also  land,  i.  e.,  a  suitable  portion  of 
the  soil,  and  can  make  use  of  this  right,  i.  e., 
acquire  actual  landed  property,  whenever  an 
opportunity  is  offered  and  no  other  right  is 
violated. 

The  right,  therefore,  of  having  private 
property  in  land  as  well  as  in  chattels,  fol- 
lows from  man's  rational  nature,  and  con- 
sequently is  granted  to  him  by  the  natural 
order  or  law.  Of  course,  this  does  not  mean 
that  every  man  is  born  an  actual  landowner; 
but  every  one  has  by  nature  the  right  to  be- 
come a  landowner.     The  actual  appropria- 


36      PRIVATE  LANDOWNERSHIP 

tion  of  land  as  of  chattels  proceeds  from 
man's  activity,  and  is  naturally  very  mani- 
fold, according  to  individual  choice,  ability, 
and  opportunity;  and,  we  must  add,  accord- 
ing to  the  dispositions  of  the  civil  law.  For 
although  the  right  of  having  private  prop- 
erty in  land  and  chattels  is  a  natural  right, 
proceeding  directly  from  man's  rational  na- 
ture and  not  from  the  State, — in  fact,  man  is 
older  than  the  State, — it  is  nevertheless  true 
that  in  civilized  society  the  natural  rights  of 
property  must  not  only  be  protected  by  the 
civil  law,  but  are  frequently  also  determined 
or  regulated  as  to  their  actual  application. 
Nor  is  it  necessary  that  all  men  should  be 
actual  proprietors  of  land;  but  there  should 
be  many,  very  many ;  thus  all  men  will  be  well 
provided  for,  either  directly  or  indirectly, 
from  God 's  large  storehouse,  *  *  the  earth  with 
its  abundance  and  fertility." 

The  same  truth, — that  the  natural  law  au- 
thorizes man  to  acquire  private  property  in 
land, — can  also  be  proved  from  the  nature  of 
the  soil.  The  earth  is  indeed  productive; 
yet  to  provide  man  suflBciently  and  perma- 
nently, it  needs  constant  care  and  cultivation. 
Now  if  a  man  cultivates  a  piece  of  ground 
which  has  no  owner,  or  builds  on  such  ground, 
natural  reason  tells  us  that  he  thereby  makes 


PRIVATE  LANDOWNERSHIP       37 

that  land  his  own,  and  no  one  can  advance  or 
urge  any  claim  to  it  without  injustice.  It  is 
the  same  as  if  a  traveller  in  a  primeval  for- 
est would  shape  a  suitable  piece  of  wood  into 
a  staff  or  weapon;  that  staff  or  weapon 
would  undoubtedly  be  his  own. 

The  deeper  reason  of  such  appropriation 
lies  in  this  that,  whenever  a  man  works  inde- 
pendently of  all  others  and  entirely  for  him- 
self, being  neither  helped  by  others  nor  bound 
by  any  title  to  work  for  others,  the  whole  re- 
sult of  his  labor  is  entirely  his;  he  can,  ac- 
cordingly, enjoy  it  fully  and  dispose  of  it 
completely  and  independently;  for  this  is 
meant  by  having  something  as  one's  own. 
Now  such  exactly  is  the  case  of  a  man  who 
cultivates  an  ownerless  field  or  builds  a 
house  with  his  own  or  with  ownerless  ma- 
terial on  ownerless  ground.  He  works  inde- 
pendently and  entirely  for  himself.  The  di- 
rect and  immediate  effect,  therefore,  of  his 
labor,  i.  e.,  the  physical  improvements  made 
in  the  soil  and  the  actual  form  given  to  the 
building  material,  are  entirely  his  own.  But 
what  would  his  ownership  or  the  right  to  the 
full  enjoyment  and  free  disposal  of  the  ef- 
fects of  his  labor  avail  him,  if  he  could  not 
likewise  freely  dispose  of  the  soil  and  the  ma- 
terial in  which  those  effects  are  inseparably 

433036 


38      PRIVATE  LANDOWNERSHIP 

embodied?  The  free  disposal  of  the  former 
without  the  free  disposal  of  the  latter  is  im- 
possible. Hence  it  follows  that  the  owner  of 
the  improvements  must  also  be  the  owner  of 
the  soil.  Whosoever  denies  him  the  owner- 
ship of  the  soil,  practically  destroys  his  own- 
ership in  the  improvements  and  thus,  for- 
sooth, * '  robs  him  of  the  very  fruits  of  his  la- 
bor." Cultivation  and  improvement,  there- 
fore, of  ownerless  land  actually  imply  the  ap- 
propriation of  that  land. 

For  the  rest,  actual  cultivation  or  improve- 
ment is  not  absolutely  necessary  for  actual 
ownership.  A  piece  of  ownerless  land  could 
be  set  apart  and  marked  as  appropriated  by 
some  one  before  any  cultivation  or  improve- 
ment took  place,  e.  g.,  by  a  fence  or  some  visi- 
ble landmarks.  The  ensuing  cultivation, 
however,  and  the  improvements,  mark  it  still 
more  clearly  as  appropriated  and  furnish,  as 
we  have  just  seen,  a  special  argument  for  the 
lawfulness  of  private  property  in  land. 

After  proving  the  justice  of  private  prop- 
erty in  land  from  the  nature  of  man  and  the 
nature  of  the  soil,  the  Pope  adds  a  threefold 
confirmation:  from  the  conviction  of  man- 
kind, the  civil  laws  of  nations,  and  the  au- 
thority of  divine  revelation. 

Having    thus    substantiated    his    second 


PRIVATE  LANDOWNERSHIP       39 

charge  against  the  socialization  of  the  soil, 
he  passes  to  the  third,  viz.,  that  this  scheme 
** perverts  the  functions  of  the  State." 

Thus  far  man  has  been  considered  merely 
as  an  individual  person.  Now,  if  we  take 
into  account  his  family  relation,  his  right  of 
having  private  property  in  land  will  appear 
in  still  clearer  light.  For  in  his  capacity  as 
head  of  a  family  his  right  of  having  private 
property  must  be  the  stronger  as  in  the  do- 
mestic circle  his  charge  extends  over  more  per- 
sons. The  welfare  and  security  of  the  family 
for  the  present  and  the  future,  require  the 
ownership  of  productive  property,  which  by 
inheritance  can  be  transmitted  to  the  chil- 
dren. It  is,  therefore,  a  demand  of  nature 
that  such  right  be  vested  in  the  head  of  the 
family  independently  of  the  State,  since  the 
family  is  naturally  prior  to  the  State,  and 
that  such  right  should  be  protected  rather 
than  destroyed  or  curtailed  in  the  common- 
wealth. The  scheme,  therefore,  of  socializ- 
ing the  land  and  having  the  community  or 
the  State  administer  the  landed  property 
needed  by,  and  belonging  in  justice  to,  the 
single  families,  transfers  to  the  State  the  nat- 
ural right  of  the  parent  and  thus  attacks  and 
invades  the  sacred  precincts  of  the  home. 
From  the  foregoing  considerations  follows, 


40      PRIVATE  LANDOWNERSHIP 

finally,  the  truth  of  the  last  charge,  that  so- 
cializing the  soil  would  ''create  universal 
confusion."  The  peace  and  prosperity  of 
society  at  large  demand  most  emphatically 
the  existence  of  private  property  not  only  in 
chattels,  but  also  in  land;  without  it  the  way 
would  be  paved  to  a  slavish  dependence  of 
the  citizens  upon  the  State,  and  a  wide  door 
would  be  thrown  open  to  mutual  discord,  to 
universal  misery  and  degradation.  These 
are  the  arguments  advanced  by  Leo  XIII.  to 
show  the  necessity  and  lawfulness  of  private 
property  in  land.  We  subjoin  the  exact 
words  of  the  Pope. 


IV 

LEO    XIII.    ON    PRIVATE    PEOPEKTY   IN   LAND  * 

''To  remedy  this  evil  [the  miserable  condi- 
tion of  the  masses]  the  Socialists,  working  on 
the  poor  man's  envy  of  the  rich,  maintain 
that  private  ownership  of  [landed]  property 
must  be  overthrown  and  in  its  stead  property 
common  to  all  be  introduced,  to  be  adminis- 
tered by  those  who  are  at  the  head  of  munic- 
ipal bodies  or  of  the  entire  commonwealth. 
By  thus  transferring  property  from  private 
persons  to  the  community,  the  present  evil 
state  of  things,  they  believe,  will  be  cured  and 
temporal  goods  and  comforts  be  equitably 
distributed  among  the  citizens.  But  this 
scheme  is  so  manifestly  unsuited  to  solve  the 
social  question,  that  [in  the  first  place]  it 
would  harm  the  working  classes  themselves ; 
moreover,  it  is  unjust,  since  it  does  violence 
to  lawful  proprietors ;  besides,  it  perverts  the 
functions  of  the  State,  and,  finally,  produces 
universal  confusion. 

1  Prom  the  Encyclical  "  Rerum  Novarura  "  of  May  15, 
1891.  (Acta  Leonis,  Ed.  Descl^e,  de  Brouwer  et  Soc,  Vol. 
IV,  pp.  178  sqq.)  Our  translation  was  made  with  the  view 
of  rendering  the  sense  as  faithfully  as  possible. 

41 


42  LEO  XIII.  ON 

^'(L)  It  IS  easy  to  see  that,  when  a  work- 
ingman  engages  in  remunerative  labor,  the 
immediate  motive  and  direct  purpose  of  his 
work  is,  to  obtain  property  and  to  hold  and 
enjoy  it  as  his  own.  For  if  a  man  hires  out 
his  strength  and  his  industry  to  another,  he 
does  this  with  the  intention  of  receiving  in 
return  what  is  necessary  for  food  and  living ; 
he,  therefore,  expressly  means  to  acquire  a 
real  and  perfect  right  not  only  to  the  wages 
but  also  to  the  free  disposal  of  them  accord- 
ing to  his  own  good  pleasure.  Hence,  if  he 
by  living  sparingly  saves  some  money  and, 
for  greater  security,  invests  his  savings  in 
real  estate,  that  real  estate  is  in  fact  noth- 
ing else  than  his  wages  in  another  form ;  con- 
sequently the  land  which  the  workingman  has 
thus  bought  will  be  in  his  power  just  as  were 
the  wages  he  had  gained  by  his  labor.  But, 
as  will  be  readily  understood,  it  is  precisely 
in  this  power  of  free  disposal  that  the  right 
of  property  consists,  whether  in  land  or  chat- 
tels. The  Socialists,  therefore,  in  endeavor- 
ing to  transfer  all  [landed]  property  from 
individuals  to  the  community,  strike  at  the  in- 
terests of  every  wage-earner;  for  they  de- 
stroy his  power  of  disposing  of  his  wages  at 
will  and  thereby  deprive  him  of  the  hope  and 


PEIVATE  PROPERTY  IN  LAND      43 

possibility  of  increasing  his  stock  and  of  bet- 
tering his  condition  in  life. 

"  (II.)  What  is  of  still  greater  importance, 
however,  is  that  the  remedy  they  propose  is 
manifestly  against  justice,  since  the  right  of 
having  property  [in  land]  is  a  right  granted 
to  man  by  nature. 

'*  (a.)  Indeed  in  this  regard,  too,  there  is  a 
sharp  distinction  between  man  and  the  animal 
creation.  For  the  brute  has  no  power  of 
self-direction,  but  is  governed  by  two  chief 
instincts,  which  not  only  preserve  and  prop- 
erly develop  its  powers,  but  also  arouse  and 
determine  all  its  particular  actions.  These 
instincts  are  self-preservation  and  the  propa- 
gation of  the  species.  Both  can  conveniently 
attain  their  purpose  by  the  use  of  things 
which  are  close  at  hand;  beyond  these  the 
brute  cannot  go,  because  it  is  moved  to  action 
by  sensibility  alone  and  by  particular  objects 
perceived  by  the  senses. 

"  It  is  far  different,  however,  in  the  case  of 
man.  He  possesses,  on  the  one  hand,  the  full 
perfection  of  animal  nature,  and  therefore  en- 
joys, at  least  as  much  as  the  brute  animals, 
the  fruition  of  what  corporal  things  offer. 
But  animality,  however  perfect,  is  far  from 
being  the  whole  of  human  nature;  it  is  hu- 


44  LEO  Xni.  ON 

manity's  humble  handmaid,  made  to  serve 
and  obey.  The  mind,  or  reason,  is  the  chief 
thing  in  us ;  it  is  this  which  makes  a  human 
being  human,  and  distinguishes  him  essen- 
tially and  completely  from  the  brute.  And 
on  this  account — viz.,  because  man  alone 
among  animals  possesses  reason — it  must  be 
within  his  right  to  have  things  not  merely  for 
actual  and  temporary  use,  as  other  living 
creatures  have  them,  but  to  hold  them  in 
stable  and  permanent  possession;  and  not 
only  things  which  in  being  used  are  con- 
sumed, but  also  such  as,  though  used,  re- 
main unimpaired. 

''This  becomes  still  more  evident  if  we 
consider  man's  nature  a  little  more  deeply. 
For  man,  comprehending  by  the  power  of  his 
reason  things  innumerable,  and  joining  the 
future  with  the  present ;  being,  moreover,  the 
master  of  his  own  actions,  governs  himself 
by  the  foresight  of  his  counsel,  under  the 
eternal  law  and  the  power  of  God  Whose 
Providence  rules  all  things.  Wherefore  it 
is  in  his  power  to  exercise  his  choice  not 
only  on  things  which  regard  his  present  wel- 
fare, but  also  on  those  which  will  be  for  his 
advantage  in  time  to  come.  Hence  it  must  be 
possible  fo.r  him  to  acquire  as  property  not 
only  the  fruits  of  the  earth,  but  the  very  soil 


PRIVATE  PROPERTY  IN  LAND      45 

itself;  for  it  is  in  the  produce  of  the  latter  that 
he  finds  the  necessaries  of  life  for  the  future. 
Man's  needs  do  not  pass  away,  but  return 
unceasingly;  though  satisfied  to-day,  they 
demand  new  supplies  for  the  morrow.  Na- 
ture, therefore,  must  have  given  to  man  a 
stable  and  never-failing  storehouse  from 
which  he  may  draw  never-ending  supplies. 
But  such  never-ending  supplies  nothing  can 
afford  except  the  earth  with  its  abundance 
and  fertility. 

"Nor  need  we  for  this  right  apply  to  the 
State.  Man  is  older  than  the  State  and  con- 
sequently must  have  possessed,  prior  to  the 
formation  of  any  State,  the  right  of  provid- 
ing for  his  subsistence. — The  fact,  further- 
more, that  God  has  given  the  earth  for  the 
use  and  enjoyment  of  the  whole  human  race, 
does  not  in  the  least  prevent  the  existence  of 
private  possessions.  For  if  it  is  said  that 
God  gave  the  earth  to  mankind  in  common, 
this  is  not  to  be  understood  as  if  He  wanted 
the  common  ownership  of  the  earth  vested  in 
all  men,  but  because  He  did  not  assign  to 
any  one  the  possession  of  any  particular  por- 
tion of  the  earth,  leaving  the  actual  distribu- 
tion of  private  possessions  to  men 's  industry 
and  to  the  laws  of  peoples. 

"For  the  rest,  in  whatever  manner  the 


46  LEO  XIII.  ON 

earth  may  be  divided  among  private  owners, 
it  never  ceases  to  minister  to  the  needs  of 
all;  for  there  is  no  one  who  does  not  derive 
his  subsistence  from  the  produce  of  the  soil. 
Those  who  have  no  landed  property  make  up 
for  this  by  their  labor.  Hence  it  may  truly 
be  said  that  all  human  subsistence  is  derived 
either  from  the  labor  expended  on  one's  own 
land,  or  from  some  other  laborious  industry, 
the  reward  of  which  consists  in  some  product 
of  the  soil,  or  at  any  rate  is  exchanged  for 
what  the  land  brings  forth. 

**  (b.)  Hence  there  arises  a  new  proof  that 
private  property  in  land  is  in  perfect  har- 
mony with  the  natural  law.  For  the  things 
which  man  needs  for  the  preservation  of  his 
life,  and  especially  for  his  well-being  and  im- 
provement, the  earth  furnishes  indeed  in 
great  abundance,  but  not  without  cultivation 
and  care  expended  on  the  soil.  Now  if  a 
man  exerts  both  his  mental  faculties  and  his 
physical  strength  in  procuring  the  fruits  of 
nature,  by  so  doing  he  makes  his  own  that 
portion  of  the  earth  which  he  cultivates  and 
on  which  he  leaves,  as  it  were,  the  impress 
of  his  personality.  Wherefore  it  can  not  but 
be  just  that  he  should  possess  that  same  por- 
tion of  the  earth  as  his  very  own,  and  it 


PRIVATE  PROPERTY  IN  LAND      47 

cannot  be  lawful  for  any  one  to  violate  such 
right. 

**The  force  of  these  arguments  is  so  evi- 
dent that  it  seems  amazing  that  some  should 
be  setting  up  certain  obsolete  opinions  in  op- 
position to  what  has  here  been  maintained. 
They  grant  to  the  individual  man  the  use  of 
the  soil  and  the  various  products  of  landed 
possessions,  but  declare  it  absolutely  wrong 
that  one  should  consider  himself  the  real 
owner  of  the  land  on  which  he  has  built  or 
of  the  estate  which  he  has  brought  under  cul- 
tivation. Forsooth,  the  opponents  of  indi- 
vidual landownership  do  not  see  that  they 
are  robbing  man  of  the  very  fruits  of  his  la- 
bor. For  the  soil  which  is  cultivated  with 
labor  and  skill  utterly  changes  its  condition : 
from  being  wild  it  becomes  productive,  from 
being  barren,  fruitful.  That  which  has  thus 
altered  and  improved  the  land  is  so  closely 
connected  and  so  perfectly  identified  with  the 
same  that  for  the  greatest  part  it  can  in  no 
wise  be  separated  from  it  any  more.  Now 
would  it  not  be  a  violation  of  justice  if  any 
one  would  appropriate  for  himself  and  enjoy 
that  which  another  has  gained  in  the  sweat 
of  his  brow?  As  effects  follow  the  cause  by 
which  they  have  been  produced,  so  it  is  but 


48  LEO  XIII.  ON 

just  and  right  that  the  fruits  of  labor  should 
belong  to  those  who  have  bestowed  the 
labor. 

*'  (c.)  "With  good  reason,  therefore,  has  the 
whole  of  mankind,  not  minding  the  dissenting 
opinions  of  a  few,  but  rather  carefully  study- 
ing the  demands  of  nature,  seen  in  the  nat- 
ural law  itself  the  foundation  for  the  division 
of  earthly  goods;  and  with  good  reason  has 
it  by  the  practice  of  all  ages  consecrated  the 
existence  of  private  possessions  as  being  pre- 
eminently in  harmony  with  human  nature 
and  conducive  to  the  peace  and  tranquillity 
of  society. — The  civil  laws,  moreover,  which, 
so  long  as  they  are  just,  derive  their  binding 
force  from  the  natural  law,  likewise  confirm 
and  protect,  even  by  coercion,  the  right  of 
property  of  which  we  are  speaking. — The 
same  has,  finally,  been  sanctioned  by  the  au- 
thority of  the  divine  law,  which  most  severely 
forbids  us  even  to  covet  that  which  belongs  to 
another.  *Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neigh- 
bor's wife,  nor  his  house,  nor  his  field,  nor  his 
man-servant,  nor  his  maid-servant,  nor  his 
ox,  nor  his  ass,  nor  anything  that  is  his.' 
(Deut.  V,  21.) 

*'(III.)  The  rights  here  spoken  of,  belong- 
ing to  each  individual  man,  are  seen  in  a 
much  stronger  light,  if  they  are  considered  in 


PRIVATE  PROPERTY  IN  LAND      49 

connection  with  man's  obligations  in  the  do- 
mestic circle. 

*'In  choosing  a  state  of  life,  it  is  indisputa- 
ble that  all  are  at  full  liberty  either  to  fol- 
low the  counsel  of  Jesus  Christ  as  to  virginity 
or  to  enter  into  the  bonds  of  marriage.  No 
human  law  can  take  from  man  the  natural 
and  primitive  right  to  marry,  or  in  any 
way  limit  the  principal  purpose  of  marriage, 
ordained  by  God's  authority  from  the  begin- 
ning: 'Increase  and  multiply.'  (Gen.  i,  28.) 
Thus  we  have  the  family  or  domestic  society, 
small,  indeed,  in  numbers,  but  a  true  society 
and  one  which  is  older  than  any  civil  so- 
ciety and  therefore  must  have  rights  and 
duties  of  its  own,  totally  independent  of  the 
commonwealth.  The  right  of  private  prop- 
erty, then,  which  has  been  proved  to  belong 
naturally  to  man  as  an  individual  person, 
must  likewise  belong  to  him  as  the  head  of  a 
family;  nay,  this  right  must  be  the  stronger 
as  in  the  domestic  circle  his  charge  extends 
over  more  persons. 

*'For  it  is  a  most  sacred  natural  law  that 
the  father  of  a  family  must  provide  food  and 
all  necessaries  for  those  whom  he  has  begot- 
ten ;  besides,  nature  herself  instills  in  him  also 
the  desire  to  provide  for  the  future  of  his 
children  who  carry  on,  as  it  were,  and  con- 


50  LEO  XIII.  ON 

tinue  his  own  personality,  so  as  to  enable 
them  honorably  to  keep  themselves  from  want 
and  misery  in  the  uncertainties  of  this  mortal 
life.  Now  in  no  other  way  can  a  father  ef- 
fect this,  except  by  the  ownership  of  produc- 
tive property  which  he  can  transmit  to  his 
children  by  inheritance. 

"The  family,  no  less  than  the  State,  is,  as 
We  have  said,  a  true  society,  governed  by  a 
power  within  itself,  that  is,  by  the  father. 
Wherefore,  provided  the  limits  prescribed 
by  the  immediate  purpose  of  its  existence  be 
not  transgressed,  the  family  has,  at  least, 
equal  rights  with  the  State  in  the  choice  and 
pursuit  of  those  things  which  are  needful  to 
its  preservation  and  its  just  liberty.  We 
say,  at  least  equal  rights;  for  since  the  do- 
mestic household  is  anterior  both  in  idea  and 
in  fact  to  the  union  of  men  in  the  common- 
wealth, its  rights  and  duties  must  likewise 
be  prior  and  more  immediately  based  on  na- 
ture than  are  those  of  the  State.  If  the  citi- 
zens or  the  families  on  entering  into  associa- 
tion and  fellowship  experienced  at  the  hands 
of  the  State  hindrance  instead  of  help  and 
found  their  rights  curtailed  instead  of  pro- 
tected, such  association  were  rather  to  be  re- 
pudiated than  sought  after. 

*'The  notion,  then,  that  the  civil  govern- 


PRIVATE  PROPERTY  IN  LAND       51 

ment  should,  at  its  own  discretion,  penetrate 
and  pervade  the  family  and  the  household,  is 
a  great  and  pernicious  error. — -True,  if  a 
family  finds  itself  in  very  great  stress,  ut- 
terly friendless,  and  without  prospect  of  as- 
sistance, it  is  right  that  extreme  necessity  be 
met  by  public  aid;  for  each  family  is  a  part 
of  the  commonwealth.  In  like  manner,  if 
within  the  walls  of  a  household  there  occur 
grave  disturbances  of  mutual  rights,  the  pub- 
lic power  must  interfere  to  force  each  party 
to  give  the  other  his  due;  for  this  is  not  to 
rob  citizens  of  their  rights,  but  justly  and 
properly  to  safeguard  and  strengthen  them. 
But  here  the  rulers  of  the  State  must  stop; 
nature  bids  them  go  no  farther.  Fraternal 
authority  can  neither  be  abolished  by  the 
State,  nor  absorbed  by  it ;  for  it  has  the  very 
same  source  as  human  life  itself.  '  The  child 
belongs  to  the  father,'  and  is,  as  it  were,  the 
continuation  of  the  father's  personality;  and, 
to  speak  accurately,  the  child  takes  its  place 
in  civil  society  not  in  its  own  right,  but  in 
its  quality  as  a  member  of  the  family  in 
which  it  is  begotten.  And  it  is  for  this  very 
reason  that  'the  child  belongs  naturally  to  the 
father,'  that,  as  St.  Thomas  Aquinas  says, 
*  Be  fore  it  attains  the  use  of  free  will,  it  is  in 
the  power  and  care  of  its  parents.'     (S.  Th. 


52      PRIVATE  PROPERTY  IN  LAND 

II.  II.  qu.  10.  art.  12.)  The  Socialists,  there- 
fore, in  setting  aside  the  solicitude  of  the 
parents  and  introducing  the  providence  of 
the  State,  act  against  natural  justice,  and 
threaten  the  very  existence  of  family  life. 

*'(IV.)  And  such  interference  is  not  only 
unjust,  but  is  quite  certain  to  harass  and  dis- 
turb all  classes  of  citizens,  and  to  subject 
them  to  odious  and  intolerable  slavery.  It 
would  open  the  door  to  envy,  to  evil-speaking 
and  to  quarrelling ;  the  very  sources  of  wealth 
would  necessarily  run  dry,  for  no  one  would 
have  any  interest  in  exerting  his  talents  or 
his  industry;  and  that  universal  equality 
which  they  imagine,  would,  in  reality,  be  the 
levelling  of  all  to  the  same  condition  of  mis- 
ery and  dishonor. 

"From  all  We  have  said  it  is  clear  that 
the  main  tenet  of  Socialists,  viz.,  the  substi- 
tution of  common  for  private  ownership, 
must  be  utterly  rejected.  It  works  harm  to 
those  who  are  to  be  assisted;  it  is  contrary 
to  the  natural  rights  of  individuals;  it  per- 
verts the  functions  of  the  State;  it  destroys 
the  peace  and  harmony  of  society.  The  first 
and  most  fundamental  principle,  therefore, 
if  we  wish  to  alleviate  the  miserable  condi- 
tion of  the  masses,  must  be  the  inviolability 
of  private  property.'* 


HENBY  George's  vain  attempt  to  eefute  the 
pope's  arguments 

Henry  George's  The  Condition  of  Labor: 
An  Open  Letter  to  Pope  Leo  XIIL,  is  in  more 
than  one  respect  a  curious  literary  produc- 
tion. It  shows,  among  other  things,  how  a 
gifted  and  well-meaning  man  may  eventually 
be  so  completely  taken  up  by  one  false  notion 
as  to  lose  sight  even  of  the  most  elementary 
truths  and  the  most  obvious  facts.  It  shows, 
above  all,  that  this  Agrarian  Socialist  had 
perfectly  well  understood  the  import  of  the 
papal  document.  ''I  have  read  with  care," 
he  begins,  ''your  Encyclical  Letter  On  the 
Condition  of  Labor,  addressed,  through  the 
Patriarchs,  Primates,  Archbishops,  and 
Bishops  of  your  faith,  to  the  Christian 
World.  Since  its  most  strikingly  pronounced 
condemnations  are  directed  against  a  theory 
that  we  who  hold  it  know  to  be  deserving  of 
your  support,  I  ask  permission  to  lay  before 
your  Holiness  the  grounds  of  our  belief,  and 
to  set  forth  some  considerations  that  you 

53 


54     HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII. 

have  unfortunately  overlooked.  -  The  mo- 
mentous seriousness  of  the  facts  you  refer  to, 
the  poverty,  suffering  and  seething  discon- 
tent that  pervade  the  Christian  world,  the 
danger  that  passion  may  lead  ignorance  in  a 
blind  struggle  against  social  conditions  rap- 
idly becoming  intolerable,  are  my  justifica- 
tion.'' 

The  author  does  not  hesitate  to  remind  the 
Pontiff  again  and  again  of  the  serious  error 
into  which  his  prejudices  have  caused  him  to 
fall.  Let  us  cull  a  few  passages  from  the 
Open  Letter. 

*'To  your  proposition  that  'Our  first  and 
most  fundamental  principle,  when  we  under- 
take to  alleviate  the  condition  of  the  masses, 
must  be  the  inviolability  of  private  property, ' 
we  would  joyfully  agree  if  we  could  only  un- 
derstand you  to  have  in  mind  the  moral  ele- 
ment, and  to  mean  rightful  private  property, 
as  when  you  speak  of  marriage  as  ordained 
by  God's  authority  we  may  understand  an 
implied  exclusion  of  improper  marriages. 
Unfortunately,  however,  other  expressions 
show  that  you  mean  private  property  in  gen- 
eral and  have  expressly  in  mind  private 
property  in  land.  This  confusion  of  thought 
[!1,  this  non-distribution  of  terms  [!],  runs 
through  your  whole  argument   [!],  leading 


HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII.      55 

you  k)  conclusions  so  unwarranted  by  your 
premises  as  to  be  utterly  repugnant  to  them, 
as  when  from  the  moral  sanction  of  private 
property  in  things  produced  by  labor  you 
infer  something  entirely  different  and  utterly 
opposed,  a  similar  right  of  property  in  the 
land  created  by  God." 

''Your  use,  in  so  many  passages  of  your 
Encyclical,  of  the  inclusive  term  'property* 
or  'private  property,'  of  which  in  morals 
nothing  can  be  either  aflSrmed  or  denied, 
makes  your  meaning,  if  we  take  isolated 
sentences,  in  many  places  ambiguous  [!]. 
But  reading  it  as  a  whole,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  of  your  intention  that  private  property 
in  land  shall  be  understood  when  you  speak 
merely  of  private  property.  With  this  in- 
terpretation, I  find  that  the  reasons  you  urge 
for  private  property  in  land  are  eight.  Let 
us  consider  them  in  order  of  presentation." 

* '  But  while  we  appreciate  the  many  whole- 
some truths  you  utter,  .  .  .  yet  it  is 
painfully  obvious  to  us  that  one  fatal  as- 
sumption hides  from  you  the  cause  of  the 
evils  you  see,  and  makes  it  impossible  for 
you  to  propose  any  adequate  remedy.  This 
assumption  is,  that  private  property  in  land 
is  of  the  same  nature  and  has  the  same  sanc- 
tions as  private  property  in  things  produced 


56     HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII. 

by  labor.  In  spite  of  its  undeniable  truths 
and  its  benevolent  spirit,  your  Encyclical 
shows  you  to  be  involved  in  such  difiSculties 
as  a  physician  called  to  examine  one  suffer- 
ing from  disease  of  the  stomach  would  meet 
should  he  begin  with  the  refusal  to  consider 
the  stomach."  [Sid] 

*'One  false  assumption  prevents  you  from 
seeing  the  real  cause  and  true  significance  of 
the  facts  that  have  prompted  your  Ency- 
clical. And  it  fatally  fetters  you  when  you 
seek  a  remedy." 

*'In  the  beginning  of  the  Encyclical  you 
declare  that  the  responsibility  of  the  apos- 
tolic oflBce  urges  your  Holiness  to  treat  the 
question  of  the  condition  of  labor  'expressly 
and  at  length  in  order  that  there  may  be  no 
mistake  as  to  the  principles  which  truth  and 
justice  dictate  for  its  settlement.'  But, 
blinded  by  one  false  assumption,  j^ou  do  not 
see  even  fundamentals."  [!!] 

It  is  amusing  to  hear  a  man  like  Henry 
George  accuse  Leo  XIII.  of  confusion  of 
thought  and  ambiguity  in  terms.  The  entire 
Encyclical  **Rerum  Novarum"  is  a  master- 
piece of  precision,  conciseness,  and  depth  of 
thought,  which  cannot  adequately  be  ren- 
dered by  any  translation.  As  to  the  term 
'* property,"  it  is  evident  from  his  very  first 


/ 


HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XHI.      57 

argument,  that  the  Pontiff  treats  explicitly 
of  landed-  property  only ;  speaking  all  along 
of  praedium,  fundus,  terra,  possessiones, 
ager,  naturae  corporeae  pars,  solum,  he  need 
not  add  each  time  that  this  property  is  meant 
to  be  property  in  land.  Moreover,  'Hhat 
private  property  in  land  is  of  the  same  na- 
ture and  has  the  same  sanctions  as  private 
property  in  things  produced  by  labor,"  the 
Pope  does  not  ''assume,"  but  ''demon- 
strates" from  various  sources,  in  particular 
from  the  nature,  individual  and  social,  of 
man,  and  from  the  nature  of  the  soil. 
Thereby  he  disproves  common  landowner- 
ship,  the  tenet  so  dear  to  all  Communistic 
systems,  and  thus  refutes  efficaciously  and 
with  one  stroke  Agrarians,  Socialists,  and  ^ 
Communists  of  whatever  description. 

From  the  seriousness  and  boldness  of  Mr.  ■ 
George's  pronouncements  we  should  expect 
that  he  had  found  some  formidable  objections 
against  the  Pope's  arguments;  but  when  we 
analyze  his  exceptions  we  are  reminded  of 
the  Latin  saying,  "Parturiunt  montes,  nas- 
cetur  ridiculus  mus!"  Nevertheless,  we 
shall  review  them  "in  order  of  presenta- 
tion." They  will  offer  us  an  opportunity  of 
elucidating  all  the  details  of  the  natural 
right  theory   of   ownership.    Besides,   they 


58     HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIH. 

have  never,  as  far  as  we  are  aware,  been  ex- 
plicitly refuted  in  any  English  book  or 
treatise/ 

Mr.  George  begins:  *'You  nrge:  1. 
That  what  is  bought  with  rightful  property 
is  rightful  property. — Clearly,  purchase  and 
sale  cannot  give,  but  can  only  transfer  own- 
ership. Property  that  in  itself  has  no  moral 
sanction  does  not  obtain  moral  sanction  by 
passing  from  seller  to  buyer.  If  right  rea- 
son does  not  make  the  slave  the  property  of 
the  slave  hunter,  it  does  not  make  him  the 
property  of  the  slave  buyer.  Yet  your  rea- 
soning as  to  private  property  in  land  would 
as  well  justify  property  in  slaves.  To  show 
this  it  is  only  needful  to  change  in  your  argu- 
ment the  word  land  to  the  word  slave.  It 
would  then  read:     .     .     ." 

This  objection  is  directed  against  the  first 
argument  or  "charge"  of  the  Pope.  The 
answer  is  obvious. 

(a)  The  sentence,  apparently  taken  verba- 
tim from  the  Encyclical,  is  not  there  at  all. 

(b)  In  his  first  argument  Leo  XIII.  does 

i"  1  Mr.  George's  Open  Letter  was  answered  by  the  Civiltd, 

"*  Cattolica,  1892,  I.  pp.  194-203  and  pp.  316-322',     His  objec- 

tions are  also  ably  refuted  by  Eev.  Henry  Pesch,  S.J.,  in  his 
volume  on  Liheralismus,  Socialismus  und  Christliche  Oe- 
aellschaftsordnung  (pp.  278-330),  which  is  the  ninth 
"  Heft "  of  Die  sociale  Frage  illustrated  by  the  Stimmen  aus 
Maria-Laach   (Herder,  Freiburg,  1896). 


HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII.      59 

not  pretend  to  prove  the  justice  of  private 
property  in  land — this  is  expressly  reserved 
for  the  second;  he  merely  calls  attention  to 
the  obvious  and  palpable  fact  that  the  social- 
ization of  the  soil  would  ''harm  the  working 
classes  themselves." 

(c)  The  application  of  the  alleged  principle 
to  the  purchasing  of  slaves,  is  altogether  out 
of  place,  since  the  Pope  neither  maintains 
nor  uses  that  absurd  maxim  in  his  ' '  argumen- 
tum  ad  hominem."  Those  acquainted  with 
Henry  George's  writings  know  that  identify- 
ing private  landownership  with  chattel  slav- 
ery is  one  of  his  hobbies.  Here  he  wastes 
four  pages  in  an  endeavor  to  inspire  the 
Pope  and  other  readers  with  horror  against 
these  two  * '  forms  of  the  same  robbery. ' '  In 
fact,  the  four  pages  must  fill  a  candid  and  re- 
flecting mind  with  horror  because  they  teem 
with  absurd  statements  and  wild  exaggera- 
tions.   Just  listen  for  a  moment : 

"Private  property  in  land,  no  less  than 
private  property  in  slaves,  is  a  violation  of 
the  true  rights  of  property.  They  are  dif- 
ferent forms  of  the  same  robbery;  twin  de- 
vices by  which  the  perverted  ingenuity  of 
man  has  sought  to  enable  the  strong  and  the 
cunning  to  escape  God's  requirement  of  la- 
bor by  forcing  it  on  others. 


60      HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII. 

''What  difference  does  it  make  whether  I 
merely  own  the  land  on  which  another  man 
must  [?]  live  or  own  the  man  himself?  [A 
very  great  difference.]  Am  I  not  in  the  one 
case  as  much  his  master  as  in  the  other? 
[No.]  Can  I  not  compel  him  to  work 
for  me?  [No.]  Can  I  not  take  to  myself  as 
much  of  the  fruits  of  his  labor;  as  fully  dic- 
tate his  actions?  [No.]  Have  I  not  over 
him  the  power  of  life  and  death?  [No.] 
For  to  deprive  a  man  of  land  is  as  certainly 
to  kill  him  [ !]  as  to  deprive  him  of  blood  by 
opening  his  veins,  or  of  air  by  tightening  a 
halter  around  his  neck."[!]  What  a  splen- 
did array  of  arguments!  Mr.  George  may 
rest  easy;  in  the  natural  system  of  private 
landownership  no  landowner  ''can,"  i.  e., 
is  empowered  to  deprive  another  man  of 
land.  For  the  same  natural  law  that 
grants  him  the  right  to  own  land,  limits  this 
right  by  essential  conditions  and  imposes 
upon  him  duties  towards  his  f ellowmen  which 
he  is  in  justice  bound  to  observe;  besides,  if 
the  civil  authority,  in  the  interest  of  the  pub- 
lic welfare,  has  made  special  enactments  con- 
cerning landed  property,  the  landowner  is 
by  the  natural  law  obliged  to  observe  also 
.these  "positive"  laws.    Among  the  numer- 


HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII.      61 

ous  wrong  notions  of  Henry  George  we  find 
also  these:  That  according  to  the  theory  of 
private  landownership  one  or  half  a  dozen 
men  could  appropriate — by  occupation — the 
whole  earth;  that,  private  property  in  land 
once  admitted,  there  is  no  restraint  put  on 
landowners  as  to  the  use  of  their  property: 
not  by  the  natural  law,  which  grants  them  an 
''absolute"  right;  nor  by  the  civil  law,  be- 
cause to  admit  any  such  State  interference 
would  be  ''Socialistic."  These  two  absurd 
notions  are  the  basis  of  his  tirades — ^not 
against  those  landowners  only  who  abuse 
their  rights  of  ownership,  but  against  land- 
ownership  as  such,  as  if  the  abuses  of  proprie- 
torship were  an  essential  feature,  a  part  and 
parcel  of  the  system.  Is  there  any  right  that 
cannot  be  abused?  Are  the  rights  of  prop- 
erty in  movables  not  abused  too,  perhaps  to 
an  equal  if  not  to  a  far  greater  extent  than 
the  rights  of  landownership?  Yet  landown- 
ers alone  are  held  responsible  by  our  Agra- 
rian economist  for  all  the  miseries  of  society  I 

"^.  That  private  property  in  land  proceeds 
from  man's  gift  of  reason. 

"In  the  second  place  your  Holiness  argues 
that  man  possessing  reason  and  forethought 
may  not  only  acquire  ownership  of  the  fruits 


62     HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII. 

of  the  earth,  but  also  of  the  earth  itself,  so 
that  out  of  its  products  he  may  make  pro- 
vision for  the  future. 

''Reason,  with  its  attendant  forethought, 
is  indeed  the  distinguishing  attribute  of  man 
.  .  .  and  labor  involves  the  use  of  reason. 
.  .  .  It  is  mind,  the  intelligent  reason,  that 
is  the  prime  mover*  in  labor,  the  essential 
agent  in  production.  The  right  of  private 
ownership  does  therefore  indisputably  attach 
to  things  provided  by  man's  reason  and  fore- 
thought. But  it  cannot  attach  to  things  pro- 
vided by  the  reason  and  forethought  of  God ! ' ' 

This  is  no  refutation  of  the  Pope's  argu- 
ment taken  from  man's  rational  nature.  The 
last  sentence  quoted  is  a  mere  assertion  and 
is  obviously  false.  "Why  should  I  not  be  al- 
lowed to  appropriate  for  my  exclusive  use  a 
share  of  those  numberless  necessary  or  use- 
ful things  which  the  Almighty  has  provided 
for  all  his  children?  Would  I  thereby  rob 
others  or  prevent  them  from  likewise  acquir- 
ing a  share f 

Henry  George  insists  on  his  demand  that 
you  must  first  produce  something  by  labor, 
then  only  can  you  own  it.  But  in  order  to 
produce  something,  you  must  have  some  ma- 
terial to  work  upon  and  to  make  something 
of,  say  a  walking  cane,  a  club,   an  arrow. 


HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII.      63 

Now  suppose  just  when  you  are  ready  to 
begin  your  work,  I  snatch  the  particular 
piece  of  wood  which  you  intended  to  shape 
into  an  arrow,  out  of  your  hand,  run  away, 
and  make  myself  an  arrow  out  of  it.  Whose 
is  this  arrow?  I  say  with  Henry  George,  it 
is  mine,  because  I  produced  it.  And  I  hear 
you  at  once  indignantly  protest  and  exclaim : 
*'You  had  no  right  to  snatch  that  piece  of 
wood  out  of  my  hand;  you  took  away  from 
me  what  was  mine;  you  did  me  a  wrong!" 
My  answer  is  ready:  *'So  you  claim  that 
piece  of  wood  was  yours  before  you  had  made 
or  begun  to  make  something  out  of  it  by  your 
labor — and  you  are  right.  First  you  must 
have  or  acquire  some  material  as  your  own; 
then  only  can  you  begin  to  work  on  it  to  the 
exclusion  of  all  others,  and  what  you  then 
make  of  it  by  your  labor,  is  undoubtedly 
yours  'as  against  all  the  world.*  " 

Production,  accordingly,  can  not  be  the 
first,  nor  consequently  the  only,  title  of  pro- 
prietorship. Before  you  can  proceed  to 
produce,  you  must  acquire  as  your  own  some 
one  object  from  among  the  numberless  things 
provided  by  God's  providence  and  not  yet  ap- 
propriated by  others.  The  acquisition  of  an 
ownerless  object  takes  place  by  apprehension 
or  ** occupation." 


64     HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII. 

To  support  liis  view,  Henry  George  uses 
an  illustration:  ''Let  us  suppose  a  company- 
travelling  through  the  desert.  .  .  .  Such 
of  them  as  had  the  forethought  to  provide 
themselves  with  vessels  of  water  would  ac- 
quire a  just  right  of  property  in  the  water 
so  carried.  .  .  .  For  while  water  itself 
is  of  the  providence  of  God,  the  presence  of 
this  water  in  such  vessels,  at  such  place,  re- 
sults from  the  providence  of  the  men  who 
carried  it.  Thus  they  have  to  it  an  exclusive 
right.  But  suppose  others  use  their  fore- 
thought in  pushing  ahead  and  appropriating 
the  springs,  refusing  when  their  fellows  come 
up  to  let  them  drink  of  the  water  save  as  they 
buy  it  from  them.  Would  such  forethought 
give  any  right?"  Why  not,  if  in  that  place 
there  were  many  springs  and  that  thoughtful 
party  would  seize  one  of  them?  Mr.  George 
evidently  has  in  his  mind  one  or  a  few  men 
seizing,  i.  e.,  occupying,  a  whole  continent 
or  the  whole  earth. 

' '  Let  me  show  this  more  fully,  since  it  may 
be  worth  while  to  meet  those  who  say  that  if 
private  property  in  land  be  not  just,  then  pri- 
vate property  in  the  products  of  labor  is  not 
just,  as  the  material  of  these  products  is 
taken  from  land.  It  will  be  seen  on  consider- 
ation that  all  of  man's  production  is  anal- 


HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII.      65 

ogous  to  such  transportation  of  water  as  we 
have  supposed.  In  growing  grain,  or  smelt- 
ing metals,  or  building  houses,  or  weaving 
cloth,  or  doing  any  of  the  things  that  consti- 
tute producing,  all  that  man  does  is  to  change 
in  place  or  form  pre-existing  matter.  As  a 
producer,  man  is  merely  a  changer,  not  a 
creator;  God  alone  creates.  And  since  the 
changes  in  which  man's  production  consists 
inhere  in  matter  so  long  as  they  persist,  the 
right  of  private  ownership  attaches  the  acci- 
dent to  the  essence,  and  gives  the  right  of 
ownership  in  that  natural  material  in  which 
the  labor  of  production  is  embodied.  Thus 
water,  which  in  its  original  form  and 
place  is  the  common  gift  of  God  to  all 
men,  when  drawn  from  its  natural  reservoir 
and  brought  into  the  desert,  passes  right- 
fully into  the  ownership  of  the  individual 
who  by  changing  its  place  has  produced  it 
there." 

Here  we  have  a  fair  specimen  of  Henry 
George's  accuracy  of  thought  and  expression. 
What  he  tries  to  prove  is  that  water  which 
is  brought  into  the  desert  becomes  thereby 
the  private  property  of  him  who  carries  it 
there  and,  in  general,  that  the  producer  can 
claim  the  product  of  his  labor  as  his  private 
property,  although  the  material  of  the  prod- 

6 


66     HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII. 

uct  is  taken  from  land,  the  common  property 
of  all.  Does  he  prove  anything?  Let  ns 
first  take  the  case  of  those  carrying  water 
into  the  desert. 

We  trust  Mr.  George  will  not  compel  us 
to  carry  the  water  into  a  desert  in  order  to 
own  it ;  but  that  he  will  grant  it  to  us  as  our 
own  as  soon  as  we  have  drawn  it  from  its 
*' original  place"  where  it  is  *'the  common 
gift  of  God  to  all  men."  Why  do  we  own  it 
then?  Because  ''the  presence  of  this  water 
in  such  vessels,  in  this  place,  results  from  the 
providence"  of  those  who  brought  it  there, 
who  ''by  changing  its  former  place  produced 
it  there"!  In  a  word:  the  water  in  the  river 
or  well  is  God's  common  gift  to  all,  belonging 
to  all ;  the  water  in  your  cup  is  your  produc- 
tion.— ^Who  in  the  world  calls  moving  a  thing 
from  one  place  to  another  producing  that 
thing?  Do  customers  who  try  on  hats  in  a 
store  produce  them  on  their  head  when  they 
put  them  on?  If  so,  they  could  keep  them 
without  paying  for  them,  because  "they  pro- 
duced them  there. ' '  This  is  sheer  nonsense ! 
By  changing  its  place  you  in  no  wise  produce 
an  object;  it  remains  what  it  was  before;  but 
you  give  it,  or  produce,  its  new  position,  that 
is  all.    Hence  the  title  of  "production"  can- 


HENRY  GEOHGE  VS.  LEO  XIII.      67 

not  be  applied  to  the  water  taken  from  its 
natural  reservoir. 

But  can,  perhaps,  the  change  in  place  as 
such  effect  ownership?  Certainly  not. 
Otherwise  what  could  hinder  me  from  cov- 
ertly pouring  the  water  from  your  cup  into 
mine  and  thus  making  it  my  private  prop- 
erty? By  filling  your  cup  with  water  you 
destroyed  the  common  ownership  of  all  man- 
kind in  that  water;  why  should  the  pouring 
of  the  same  water  from  your  cup  into  mine 
not  destroy  your  ownership'  in  that  water? 
Is  the  natural  and  common  ownership  of 
mankind  not  a  far  stronger  title  than  the  ac- 
quired ownership  of  one  individual?  Hence 
the  same  action — change  of  place — should 
be  able  to  destroy  the  former,  stronger,  but 
not  the  second,  weaker,  title?  According  to 
Henry  George,  therefore,  water  or  any  other 
creature  of  God  can  no  more  be  the  private 
property  of  any  one  when  taken  from  its 
original  place,  than  it  was  before. 

Production  properly  signifies, — bringing 
something  into  existence  or  causing  it  to  exist. 
If  the  production  takes  place  without  pre-ex- 
isting matter,  we  have  creation,  in  the  proper 
sense;  otherwise  we  have  ordinary  produc- 
tion, i.  e.,  a  change  of  something  into  some- 


68      HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII. 

thing  else.  *  *  As  a  producer,  man  is  merely  a 
changer,  not  a  creator;  God  alone  creates." 
But  a  producer  man  is  not  by  merely  changing 
things  in  place ;  he  must  cause  in  them  some 
new  form  by  which  they  are  now  what  they 
were  not  before;  thus  only  he  causes  a  new 
being  to  exist,  thus  only  is  he  *'a  producer." 
How,  then,  does  Henry  George  prove  that 
' '  a  producer, ' '  in  the  strict  and  proper  sense, 
acquires  private  ownership  in  the  ''product" 
of  his  labor,  as  commonly  understood,  i.  e., 
not  only  in  the  new  form,  but  also  in  the  ma- 
terial or  substance,  of  which  it  consists! 

"Since  the  changes  in  which  man's  pro- 
duction consists,  inhere  in  matter  so  long  as 
they  persist,  the  right  of  private  ownership 
attaches  the  accident  to  the  essence,  and  gives 
the  right  of  ownership  in  that  natural  mate- 
rial in  which  the  labor  of  production  is  em- 
bodied." This  looks  very  much  like  a  phil- 
osophical proof.  One  might  even  suspect 
it  to  have  been  copied  from  an  argument  of 
the  Encyclical  itself.  The  Pope  writes: 
"The  soil  when  cultivated  with  labor  and 
skill,  utterly  changes  its  condition:  from  be- 
ing wild  it  becomes  productive;  from  being 
barren,  fruitful.  That  which  has  thus  al- 
tered and  improved  the  land  is  so  closely 
connected  and   so  perfectly  identified  with 


HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIIL      69 

the  same,  that  for  the  greatest  part  it  can  in 
no  wise  be  separated  from  it.  Now  would  it 
not  be  a  violation  of  justice  for  any  one  to 
appropriate  to  himself  and  enjoy  that  which 
another  has  gained  in  the  sweat  of  his 
brow!" 

Such  is  the  Pope's  argument  from  the  na- 
ture of  the  soil.  Put  in  the  short  form  of 
Mr.  Henry  George  it  runs  thus:  Since  the 
changes  in  which  man's  production  consists, 
e.  g.,  the  physical  alterations  and  improve- 
ments of  land,  inhere  in  matter,  in  our  case 
in  the  cultivated  land,  so  long  as  they  persist 
the  right  of  private  ownership  attaches  the 
accidents,  the  alterations  and  improvements, 
to  the  essence,  the  land,  and  gives  the  right 
of  ownership  in  that  natural  material,  the 
soil,  in  which  the  labor  of  production  is  em- 
bodied.— ^We  must  thank  Mr.  .George  for 
placing  the  Pope's  argument  so  clearly  and 
convincingly  before  us;  thus  no  one  can  es- 
cape its  cogency.  Physical  changes  in  the 
soil  that  are  the  result  of  my  labor,  are  mine, 
and  I  can  claim  all  the  benefit  accruing  from 
them.  But  those  same  changes  inseparably 
inhere  in  the  soil  and  cannot  be  used  without 
using  the  soil,  and  no  one  can  use  the  soil 
without  using  them.  Hence  my  ownership 
in  the  changes  cannot  subsist  without  owner- 


70     HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII. 

ship  in  the  soil.  Accordingly,  to  deny  me 
the  latter  is  to  deny  me  also  the  former — is 
to  rob  me  of  the  fruits  of  my  labor. 

But  notwithstanding  its  simplicity  and 
cogency  Henry  George  is  bold  enough  to  re- 
ject this  argument.  He  rejects  his  own  proof 
when  applied  to  land,  and  upholds  it  when 
applied  to  water  which  you  carry  into  the 
desert  and  so  produce  it  there  [!],  and  to 
ordinary  productions  in  which  natural  ma- 
terial is  used. 

It  is  evident  that  this  discrimination  is 
quite  arbitrary  and  against  all  logic.  Either 
he  has  to  admit  the  validity  of  the  argument 
in  all  cases  of  labor  embodied  in  pre-existing 
matter,  or  to  deny  it  in  all.  All  things  of 
nature  are  equally  the  common  gift  of  God 
to  all  men.  There  is  no  ditference  whatever 
in  this  respect.  But  now  comes  the  decisive 
question :  how  is  the  original  grant  of  natural 
things  by  God  to  all  men  to  be  understood? 
Are  all  things  thereby  made  the  common 
property  of  all  men,  or  are  they  only  objects 
without  an  actual  owner,  res  nullius,  but  ap- 
propriable by  any  one  who  fulfills  the  condi- 
tions of  appropriation?  Henry  George 
chooses  the  first  alternative  and  in  this  sup- 
position the  said  argument  is  invalid  in  all 
cases  of  labor  embodied  in  pre-existing  mat- 


HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII.      71 

ter;  for  the  exclusive  ownership  of  an  indi- 
vidual in  the  material  would  rob  all  other  men 
of  their  natural  ownership  in  the  same. 
Hence  in  his  theory  there  can  be  no  private 
property  in  any  product  of  labor,  which  is  ab- 
surd. The  Pope  chooses  the  other  alternative, 
the  only  reasonable  and  true  one,  and  in  this 
supposition  the  argument  is  valid  in  all  cases 
of  labor  embodied  in  pre-existing  matter, 
whether  land  or  other  natural  material. 

It  seems  that  Henry  George  himself  had 
some  misgivings  about  his  proof  of  private 
ownership  in  the  products  of  labor.  For 
in  the  very  next  paragraph — who  would 
deem  such  a  thing  possible? — he  explicitly 
denies  that  the  private  ownership  proved  by 
him  is  real  ownership!  Here  are  his  words: 
''But  such  right  of  ownership  is  in  reality  a 
mere  right  of  temporary  possession.  For 
though  man  may  take  material  from  the  store- 
house of  nature  and  change  it  in  place  [ !]  or 
form  to  suit  his  desires,  yet  from  the  moment 
he  takes  it,  it  tends  back  to  that  storehouse 
again.  Wood  decays,  iron  rusts,  stone  dis- 
integrates and  is  displaced,  while  of  more 
perishable  products,  some  will  last  for  only  a 
few  months,  others  for  only  a  few  days,  and 
some  disappear  immediately  on  use."  This 
passage  shows  anew  the  woeful  lack  of  clear 


72     HENRY  GEOEGE  VS.  LEO  XIII. 

ideas  and  sound  principles  in  the  author  of 
the  Open  Letter. 

The  fact  or  right  of  my  full  ownership  in 
some  exterior  property  is  one  thing,  the  du- 
ration of  my  ownership  or  my  property,  an- 
other. The  second  in  no  way  affects  the  first. 
When  I  give  the  object  away,  when  it  per- 
ishes, or  when  I  die,  I  cease  to  be  the  owner, 
and  the  property  ceases  to  be  my  property; 
before  that  I  am  the  owner,  after  that  the 
property  passes  to  another  owner  or  returns 
to  the  storehouse  of  nature.  Henry  George 
explicitly  grants  private  ownership  in  ''such 
things  as  buildings,  which  with  repair  will 
last  for  generations;"  he  will  undoubtedly 
also  grant  it  in  such  as  will  last  so  long  with- 
out repair ;  likewise  in  the  products  of  labor 
and  art  which  last  for  thousands  of  years, 
like  the  Roman  triumphal  arches  or  the  pyr- 
amids of  Egypt ;  but  he  will  not  grant  the  pri- 
vate ownership  of  the  ground  on  which  such 
buildings  or  monuments  are  erected.  Is 
this  not  inconsistent? 

"3.  That  private  property  in  land  deprives 
no  one  of  the  use  of  land.  .  .  .  You  say 
in  substance,  that  even  though  divided  among 
private  owners  the  earth  does  not  cease  to 
minister  to  the  needs  of  all,  since  those  who 
do  not  possess  the  soil  can  by  selling  their 


HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII.      73 

labor  obtain  in  payment  the  produce  of  the 
land." 

Nothing  is  truer  and  more  clearly  evident 
than  what  the  Pope  says.  How  does  Henry 
George  ''refute"  it?  By  two  illustrations 
which  would  be  to  the  point  only  if  the  earth 
were  the  common  property  of  mankind  or  if 
one  man  or  a  few  men  could  appropriate  a 
whole  country  by  occupancy.  Next  he  calls 
the  Pope's  attention  to  the  miserable  condi- 
tion of  various  countries  with  large  agricul- 
tural districts,  Italy,  Roman  Britain,  the  once 
flourishing  provinces  of  the  East,  Scotland, 
Ireland,  the  United  States,  Australia,  and 
finally  cries  out:  "To  the  mere  materialist 
this  is  sin  and  shame.  Shall  we  to  whom  this 
world  is  God's  world — we  who  hold  that  man 
is  called  to  this  life  only  as  a  prelude  to  a 
higher  life — shall  we  defend  it?"  As  if  the 
writer  in  his  Open  Letter  or  elsewhere  had 
made  it,  we  would  not  say  certain,  but  in  the 
least  probable,  that  all  this  universal  misery 
is  due  to  the  institution  of  landed  property  as 
such,  and  not  rather  to  the  iniquities  of  indi- 
vidual landowners,  of  speculators  in  land,  of 
possessors  of  movable  capital,  and  the  per- 
verse or  deficient  legislation  of  many  coun- 
tries where  the  laws  do  not  check  the  gravest 
commercial  and  industrial  abuses,  by  which 


74     HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII. 

the  needy  suffer  most  and  the  enormously 
rich  become  richer  still ! 

"4.  That  industry  expended  on  land  gives 
ownership  in  the  land  itself." — This  is  the 
Pope's  argument  taken  from  the  nature  of 
the  soil  and  refers  to  ownerless  land,  as  all 
land  originally  was.  Since  the  five  pages 
which  Mr.  George  devotes  to  this  head  con- 
tain absolutely  nothing  new,  we  may  at  once 
pass  to  the  next. 

''5^  That  private  property  in  land  has  the 
support  of  the  common  opinion  of  mankind, 
and  has  conduced  to  peace  and  tranquillity, 
and  that  it  is  sanctioned  by  Divine  Law. 

*'Even  were  it  true  that  the  common  opin- 
ion of  mankind  has  sanctioned  private  prop- 
erty in  land,  this  would  no  more  prove  its 
justice,  than  the  once  universal  practice  of 
the  known  world  would  have  proved  the  jus- 
tice of  slavery. ' ' 

In  ethics  a  twofold  kind  of  slavery  is  dis- 
tinguished; one  in  which  the  essential  rights 
of  man  as  a  person  and  moral  being  are  safe- 
guarded, and  the  slave  is  merely  bound  to 
perpetual  service  for  perpetual  support 
Cfamulatus  perpetuus  pro  perpetuis  alimen- 
tis") ;  the  other  in  which  the  slave  is  consid- 
ered and  treated  as  a  chattel  without  rights. 
Although  even  the  former,  or  mitigated,  kind 


HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII.      75 

of  slavery  is  little  in  harmony  with  man's 
natural  dignity,  yet  it  is  not  intrinsically  and 
absolutely  opposed  to  the  natural  law.  It 
was  allowed  among  the  Jews  (Levit.  xxv,  44- 
46) ;  among  the  heathen  nations  of  the  ancient 
world  it  had  gradually  become  a  social  neces- 
sity and  was  lawful;  hence  St.  Paul  ordered 
Christian  slaves  'Ho  obey  in  all  things  [their] 
masters  according  to  the  flesh"  (Col.  iii,  22). 
The  second  kind,  or  absolute  slavery,  is  in- 
trinsically and  essentially  against  the  natural 
law  and  was  never  licit,  although  it  was  wide- 
ly practiced  among  heathen  nations  and  even 
sanctioned  by  their  laws.  But  neither  kind 
of  slavery  can  claim  that  universality  in  time 
and  space  which  the  system  of  private  land- 
ownership  can.  Historically,  the  latter  can 
be  traced  back  to  the  cradle  of  the  human 
race;  it  is  found  as  a  lasting  institution 
among  all  civilized  nations;  now  and  then 
there  occurs  an  instance  of  collective  prop- 
erty in  land;  it  is  always  with  peoples  who 
have  no  fixed  habitation  or  with  tribes  still 
on  a  low  stage  of  culture;  but  as  soon  as 
they  give  up  their  roving  mode  of  life  or  when 
they  advance  to  a  higher  stage  of  civilization, 
the  system  of  common  ownership  is  gradually 
supplanted  by  the  introduction  of  private 
property  in  land.* 

1  Cf.  H.  Peach,  1.  c,  pp.  225-235. 


76     HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII. 

''As  to  private  property  in  land  having 
conduced  to  the  peace  and  tranquillity  of  hu- 
man life,  it  is  not  necessary  more  than  to  al- 
lude to  the  notorious  fact  that  the  struggle 
for  land  has  been  the  prolific  source  of  wars 
and  of  lawsuits,  while  it  is  the  poverty  engen- 
dered by  private  property  in  land  [?]  that 
makes  the  prison  and  the  workhouse  the  un- 
failing attributes  of  what  we  call  Christian 
civilization. ' ' 

Could  we  not  ''allude"  likewise  to  the  no- 
torious fact  that  the  struggle  for  political 
dominion  or  sovereignty  has  been  the 
"source"  of  numberless  wars,  and  private 
property  in  objects  diiferent  from  land  the 
"source"  of  countless  lawsuits?  In  reality, 
however,  it  is  not  political  sovereignty,  or 
private  property  in  land  or  chattels,  that  is 
the  source  of  so  much  strife  among  nations 
or  individuals,  but  the  wickedness  and  greed 
of  men  who  do  not  respect  the  rights  of 
others,  nations  or  individuals.  Honest  men 
will  respect  the  rights  of  their  fellow-men, 
and  where  the  rights  of  individuals  or  pri- 
vate societies  are  not  respected,  the  higher 
power  of  authority  must  step  in  to  procure 
for  each  his  dues.  Were  there  no  rights  of 
private  property,  there  would  be  no  viola- 
tions or  wrongs  either.     Every  one,  there- 


HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII.      77 

fore,  could  without  injustice  deal  with  his 
neighbor's  so-called  "possessions"  as  he 
pleased.  The  weaker  would  be  at  the  mercy 
of  the  stronger  and  no  one  could  complain 
or  protest  that  he  was  wronged.  Where 
there  are  no  rights,  there  are  no  wrongs! 
The  rights  of  property,  however,  being  done 
away  with,  man's  greediness  is  not  done  away 
with,  but  remains  and  is  the  more  excited 
as  there  are,  in  that  supposition,  no  opposing 
claims  of  justice  to  check  its  excesses. 

''Your  Holiness  intimates  that  the  Divine 
Law  gives  its  sanction  to  the  private  owner- 
ship of  land,  quoting  from  Deuteronomy, 
*  Thou  shalt  not  covet,  etc. '  If,  as  your  Holi- 
-ness  conveys,  this  inclusion  of  the  words,  'nor 
his  field,'  is  to  be  taken  as  sanctioning  pri- 
vate property  in  land  as  it  exists  to-day, — 
[we  suppose  that  Henry  George  does  not 
mean  to  include  in  this  phrase,  which  he  uses 
repeatedly,  the  particular  cases  of  fraud  on 
the  part  of  individual  proprietors] — then, 
but  with  far  greater  force,  must  the  words, 
'his  man-servant,  nor  his  maid-servant,'  be 
taken  to  sanction  chattel  slavery  [mitigated 
slavery,  viz.,  where  it  lawfully  existed  and  as 
long  as  it  was  not  abolished] ;  for  it  is  evident 
from  other  provisions  of  the  same  code  that 
these  terms  referred  both  to  bondsmen  for 


78      HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII. 

a  term  of  years  or  to  perpetual  slaves  [mit- 
igated slavery].  But  the  word  'field'  in- 
volves the  idea  of  use  and  improvement, 
to  which  the  right  of  possession  and  owner- 
ship does  attach  without  recognition  of  prop- 
erty in  the  land  itself.  And  that  this  refer- 
ence to  the  'field'  is  not  a  sanction  of  private 
property  in  land  as  it  exists  to-day  [ !]  is 
proved  by  the  fact  that  the  Mosaic  code  ex- 
pressly denied  such  unqualified  ownership  in 
land,  and  with  the  declaration,  '  the  land  also 
shall  not  be  sold  for  ever,  because  it  is  mine, 
and  you  are  strangers  and  sojourners  with 
me,'  provided  for  its  reversion  every  fiftieth 
year ;  thus,  in  a  way  adapted  to  the  primitive 
industrial  conditions  of  the  time,  securing  to 
all  of  the  chosen  people  a  foothold  in  the 
soil." 

Here  our  Agrarian  Socialist  gives  his  Holi- 
ness, Pope  Leo  XIII.,  ''the  head  of  the  larg- 
est body  of  Christians,"  a  practical  lecture  on 
exegeticsl  And  he  is  clever  enough  to  find 
in  the  text  of  Moses  just  what  he  wants.  The 
word  "field,"  he  says,  involves  the  idea  of 
use  and  improvement.  But,  our  learned  ex- 
egete  forgets  that  the  same  word  "field"  in- 
volves before  and  above  everything  else  the 
soil.  Moreover,  he  forgets  that  the  word 
"his"    involves    and   designates    individual 


HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII.      79 

ownership  and  that,  consequently,  the  com- 
bination **his  field"  designates  nothing  else 
than  the  much  dreaded  private  ownership  of 
the  soil.  In  fact,  only  he  who  owns  the  land 
or  soil  can  call  the  field  ' '  his ; ' '  one  who  has 
merely  rented  a  farm,  can  not  call  it  "his." 
In  the  Henry  George  theory,  however,  *'the 
individual  possessor  of  a  particular  piece 
or  tract  of  land  is  in  reality  nothing  more 
than  a  tenant  of  the  State  or  the  community." 
Hence  the  words  of  Deuteronomy  **nor  his 
field,"  denote  not  merely  possession  or  usu- 
fruct in  opposition  to  property  in  land,  but 
real  property  or  ownership  in  land,  just  as 
the  words  "nor  his  house,"  "nor  his  ox,  nor 
his  ass,  nor  anything  else  which  is  his,"  sig- 
nify real  property  or  ownership. 

The  declaration  of  the  Mosaic  law,  "The 
land  also  shall  not  be  sold  for  ever:  because 
it  is  mine,  and  you  are  strangers  and  so- 
journers with  me"  (Levit.  xxv,  23),  means 
nothing  but  a  prohibition  of  selling  landed 
property.  An  Israelite  could  lease  his  land 
or  sell  the  usufruct  up  to  the  next  "year  of 
the  jubilee,"  but  he  could  never  sell  the  prop- 
erty in  land  itself.  The  land  in  each  case 
belonged  always,  not  to  the  whole  of  "the 
chosen  people,"  but  to  the  particular  family 
to  which  it  had  been  given  at  the  first  distri- 


80     HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII. 

bution  after  the  conquest  of  Palestine, 
Whatever  land  had  been  ' '  sold, "  i.  e.  leased, 
had  to  be  returned  every  fiftieth  year.  '  *  And 
thou  shalt  sanctify  the  fiftieth  year,  and  shalt 
proclaim  remission  to  all  the  inhabitants  of 
thy  land;  for  it  is  the  year  of  the  jubilee. 
Every  man  shall  return  to  his  possession, 
and  every  one  shall  go  back  to  his  former 
family.  ...  In  the  year  of  the  jubilee 
all  shall  return  to  their  possessions.  .  .  . 
For  in  that  year  all  that  is  sold  shall  return 
to  the  owner  and  to  the  ancient  possessor." 
(Levit.  XXV,  10,  13,  28.) 

The  landed  property  among  the  Israelites 
was  not  common  but  private,  though  by  spe- 
cial provision  of  the  law  inalienable  and 
transferable  only  by  inheritance.  *' Com- 
mand the  children  of  Israel  and  say  to  them : 
When  you  shall  have  passed  over  the  Jordan, 
entering  into  the  land  of  Chanaan,  destroy 
all  the  inhabitants  of  that  land.  .  .  .  And 
you  shall  divide  it  among  you  by  lot.  .  .  . 
To  every  one  as  the  lot  shall  fall,  so  shall 
the  inheritance  be  given.  The  possession 
shall  be  divided  by  the  tribes  and  the  fam- 
ilies" (Num.  xxxiii,  51-54).  Special  regula- 
tions were  enacted  concerning  marriage,  *  *  lest 
the  possessions  of  the  children  of  Israel  be 
mingled  from  tribe  to  tribe    .    .    .    that  the 


HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII.      81 

inlieritance  may  remain  in  the  families,  and 
that  the  tribes  be  not  mingled  one  with  an- 
other, but  remain  so  as  they  were  separated 
by  the  Lord"  (Num.  xxxvi,  7-10). 

The  Israelites  were  truly  'Hhe  chosen  peo- 
ple," the  people  of  divine  predilection,  and 
God  was  in  a  particular  sense  their  Lord 
and  God.  Of  this  He  wished  them  to  be  al- 
ways mindful;  therefore  He  reminded  them 
frequently  that  the  land  which  they  should 
possess  was  the  land  which  was  His  own, 
which  He  had  promised  to  their  fathers, 
which  He  would  give  them,  to  each  family, 
as  it  were,  in  particular,  by  a  special  dis- 
position of  His,  viz.,  "by  lot."  A  positive 
and  explicit  grant  by  God  is  certainly  a  law- 
ful title  of  full  and  complete  ownership.  But 
we  must  remember  that  God  grants  His  gifts 
differently  than  man.  What  God  grants  or 
gives  to  man,  remains  His  as  before,  whilst 
what  one  man  gives  to  another,  does  not  re- 
main his.  God  is  and  remains  necessarily 
the  Lord  of  all  things,  of  the  earth  and  all 
its  treasures,  as  well  as  of  man  and  all  he 
has  or  acquires  in  any  manner  whatsoever. 
Nevertheless  man  really  owns  whatever  he 
owns;  but  what  he  owns,  is  his  own,  not  as 
against  the  Lord  and  Creator  of  all  things, 
but  "as  against  all  the  world." 

6 


82      HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII. 

In  connection  with  the  Mosaic  code,  it  is 
to  be  noted  that  private  property  in  land 
existed  long  before  the  Jewish  lawgiver. 
The  Israelites  had  met  with  it  in  Egypt, 
where  it  can  be  traced  back  several  cen- 
turies before  Abraham;  later  on  they  found 
it  in  Assyria  and  Babylonia,  where  it  can 
likewise  be  shown  to  have  existed  from  the 
earliest  times.  True,  the  Decalogue,  as  pro- 
mulgated by  Moses,  had  the  force  of  a 
''positive  divine  law"  for  the  Jews  only, 
but  they  were  bound  to  observe  it  towards 
all  nations  with  whom  they  came  in  contact. 
Moreover,  although  the  whole  Mosaic  code 
ceased  with  the  introduction  of  the  new 
law,  the  ten  commandments,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  some  details  evidently  intended  only 
for  ''the  chosen  people"  as  such,  were  re- 
newed by  Christ  and  form  part  of  the  new 
law,  which  is  to  last  to  the  end  of  time.  Ac- 
cordingly, what  Leo  XIII.  maintains  is  per- 
fectly true,  viz.,  private  property  in  land 
"has  been  sanctioned  by  the  authority  of  the 
divine  law."  The  doctrine,  therefore,  de- 
claring individual  landownership  to  be  mor- 
ally wrong  and  unjust,  is  not  only  opposed 
to  reason,  but  also  to  divine  revelation. 

After  the  passage  quoted  above  from  his 
Open  Letter,  Henry  George  continues  as  fol- 


HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII.      83 

lows:  "Nowhere  in  fact  throughout  the 
Scriptures  can  the  slightest  justification  be 
found  for  the  attaching  to  land  of  the  same 
right  of  property  that  justly  attaches  to  the 
things  produced  by  labor.  Everywhere  is 
it  treated  as  the  free  bounty  of  God,  'the 
land  which  the  Lord  thy  God  giveth  thee.*  " 
The  audacity  of  this  assertion  is  amazing. 
The  following  texts  need  no  comment.  Our 
Lord  said  to  St.  Peter:  ''Every  one  that 
hath  left  house,  or  brethren,  or  sisters,  or 
father,  or  mother,  or  wife,  or  children,  or 
lands  for  my  name's  sake:  shall  receive  an 
hundred-fold,  and  shall  possess  life  everlast- 
ing." (Matth.  xix,  29).  In  the  Acts  we  read 
of  the  first  Christians:  "As  many  as  were 
owners  of  lands  or  houses  sold  them,  and 
brought  the  price  of  the  things  they  sold,  and 
laid  it  down  before  the  feet  of  the  Apostles. 
.  .  .  And  Joseph,  .  .  .  having  land, 
sold  it,  and  brought  the  price.  .  .  .  But 
a  certain  man  named  Ananias,  with  Saphira, 
his  wife,  sold  a  piece  of  land,  and  by  fraud 
kept  back  part  of  the  price  of  the  land. 
.  .  .  But  Peter  said :  Ananias,  why  hath 
Satan  tempted  thy  heart,  that  thou  shouldst 
.  .  .  by  fraud  keep  part  of  the  price  of  the 
land?  Whilst  it  [the  land]  remained  [un- 
sold], did  it  not  remain  to  thee?  and  after 


84    HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII. 

it  was  sold,  was  it  [the  price]  not  in  thy 
power  [at  thy  free  disposal]  1  Why  hast 
thou  conceived  this  thing  in  thy  heart?'* 
(Acts  iv,  34-37;  v,  1-4). 

In  these  passages  private  property  in  land 
is  represented  and  declared  as  lawful,  though 
divesting  one's  self  of  it  for  God's  sake  is 
described  as  an  act  of  superior  virtue. 
Hence  the  contrary  doctrine  has  always  been 
considered  heretical. 

^'6.  That  fathers  should  provide  for  their 
children  and  that  private  property  in  land  is 
necessary  to  enable  them  to  do  so. 

"With  all  that  your  Holiness  has  to  say 
of  the  sacredness  of  the  family  relation  we 
are  in  full  accord.  But  how  the  obligation 
of  the  father  to  the  child  can  justify  private 
property  in  land  we  cannot  see." 

We  have  here  a  sad  case  of  color-blind- 
ness. Henry  George  cannot  see  what  the 
Pontiff  has  made  so  clear  by  his  argument ; 
on  the  other  hand,  he  sees  things  in  the 
papal  text  which  are  not  there  at  all.  To 
begin  with  the  former,  the  Pope  starts  from 
the  principle  that  the  family,  with  its  es- 
sential duties  and  rights,  is  an  institution 
of  nature,  i.  e.,  of  God  by  the  natural  law. 
Rights  flow  from  duties.  Now  what  is  the 
duty  of  a  father?     '*It  is  a  most  sacred 


HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII.      85 

natural  law  that  a  father  must  provide  food 
and  all  the  necessaries  for  those  whom  he  has 
begotten."  This  is  his  strict  duty.  But  his 
natural  love  for  his  offspring  urges  him  to 
do  more,  to  secure  their  welfare,  so  far  as 
in  him  lies,  also  in  the  future.  ''  And  simi- 
larly nature  dictates  that  a  man's  children, 
who  carry  on,  as  it  were,  and  continue  his 
own  personality,  should  be  provided  by  him 
with  all  that  is  needful  to  enable  them  honor- 
ably to  keep  themselves  from  want  and  mis- 
ery in  the  uncertainties  of  this  mortal  life." 
This  is  the  text  of  the  translation  which  Mr. 
George  used.  The  original  of  the  Encyclical 
does  not  say:  ''nature  dictates,"  but:  ** be- 
sides, nature  herself  instills  in  him  also  the 
desire — idemque  (paterfamilias)  illuc  a 
natura  ipsa  deducitur,  ut  velit  liberis  suis 
.  .  .  anquirere  et  parare,  unde,  etc. — 
to  provide  for  the  future  of  his  children 
.  .  .  so  as  to  enable  them,  etc."  ''Now 
in  no  other  way  can  a  father  effect  this  ex- 
cept by  the  ownership  of  profitable  property, 
which  he  can  transmit  to  his  children  by  in- 
heritance. ' ' 

What  a  pity  that  Henry  George  cannot 
see  the  conclusiveness  of  this  fine  argument. 
How  could  fathers  of  families  provide  the 
necessaries  of  life  if  none  could  own  even 


86     HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII. 

the   least   portion   of   the   large    storehouse 
of  nature,  which  alone,  assisted  indeed  by 
man's  constant  care  and  toil,  can  afford  for 
ever-recurring  needs  never-failing  supplies? 
And  what  would  become  of  their  authority 
,/    and  dignity  as  the  God-appointed  rulers  and 
chief  managers    of    their    households,    if   in 
the    necessaries    of  life — all   of  which   are 
ultimately  drawn  from  ''the  earth  with  its 
abundance    and    fertility" — they   would    es- 
sentially depend  on  the  universal  landowner, 
the  State,  and  the  State's  officials?    As  re- 
gards  the   further   desire,   so   natural  in   a 
father,  of  providing  for  his  offspring  a  se- 
cure and  honorable  existence  in  the  future 
when  he  will  have  been  taken  from  them,  it 
must  certainly  be  right  and  lawful  to  satisfy 
such  a  noble  desire,  and  there  must  be  means 
to  fulfill  it.    But  which  are  these  means  ex- 
cept ''profitable  property    [in   land]    which 
one  can  transmit  to  his  children  by  inherit- 
ance"?   An  economic  condition  of  society, 
therefore,   in   which   only    a   comparatively 
small   number   of   fathers   are,   or   can   be, 
actual  owners  of  landed  property  is  far  from 
being  the  normal  condition  intended  for  man- 
kind by  the  natural  law;  but  a  social   ar- 
rangement   which    precludes    all    heads    of 
families  from  becoming  landed  proprietors 


HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII.      87 

is  directly  ''against  natural  justice  and 
menaces  the  very  existence  of  family  life." 

While  alas !  Henry  George  can  not  perceive 
the  force  in  this  argument  of  the  Pope,  he 
sees  on  the  other  hand,  several  things  in 
it  which  no  one  else  can  find.  He  sees  that 
the  teaching  of  Leo  XIII.  is  against  the 
* '  Our  Father  " !    He  writes : 

*'We  do,  for  a  few  years,  need  the  provi- 
dence of  our  fathers  after  the  flesh.  But 
how  small,  how  transient,  how  narrow  is 
this  need,  as  compared  with  our  constant 
need  of  the  providence  of  Him  in  whom  we 
live,  move  and  have  our  being — Our  Father 
who  art  in  Heaven !  It  is  to  Him,  '  the  giver 
of  every  good  and  perfect  gift'  and  not  to 
our  fathers  after  the  flesh,  that  Christ  taught 
us  to  pray,  'Give  us  this  day  our  daily 
bread.'  .  .  .  What  your  Holiness  is 
actually,  though  of  course  inadvertently, 
urging,  is  that  earthly  fathers  should  as- 
sume the  functions  of  the  Heavenly  Father. 
It  is  not  the  business  of  one  generation 
to  provide  the  succeeding  generation  with 
'all  that  is  needful  to  enable  them  honor- 
ably to  keep  themselves  from  want  and 
misery.'  That  is  God's  business.  We  no 
more  create  our  children  than  we  create  our 
fathers."  [!!] 


88     HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII. 

He  sees,  besides,  that  the  Pope,  * '  of  course 
inadvertently,"  urges  'Uhe  robbery  of 
others."  ''The  profitable  property  your 
Holiness  refers  to,  is  private  property  in 
land.  Now  profitable  land,  as  all  economists 
will  agree,  is  land  superior  to  the  land  that 
the  ordinary  man  can  get.  [ !]  It  is  land 
that  will  yield  an  income  to  the  owner  as 
owner,  and  therefore  that  will  permit  the 
owner  to  appropriate  the  products  of  labor 
without  doing  labor,  its  profitableness  to  the 
individual  involving  the  robbery  of  other 
individuals.  [ ! !]  It  is  therefore  possible 
only  for  some  fathers  to  leave  their  children 
profitable  land.  What  therefore  your  Holi- 
ness practically  declares  is,  that  it  is  the 
duty  of  all  fathers  to  struggle  to  leave  their 
children  what  only  the  few  peculiarly  strong, 
lucky  or  unscrupulous  can  leave;  and  that, 
a  something  that  involves  the  robbery  of 
others — their  deprivation  of  the  material 
gifts  of  God.  This  anti-Christian  doctrine 
has  been  long  in  practice  throughout  the 
Christian  world.  What  are  its  results?  etc., 
etc."  [!!] 

Towards  the  end  of  his  letter  Mr.  George 
even  adds  the  charge  of  practical  atheism. 
''What  is  the  prayer  of  Christendom — the 
universal   prayer    .     .    .    that   is   repeated 


HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII.      89 

by  the  youngest  child  that  the  poorest  Chris- 
tian mother  has  taught  to  lisp  a  request  to 
her  Father  in  Heaven?  It  is  'Give  us  this 
day  our  daily  bread!'  Yet  where  this 
prayer  goes  up,  daily  and  hourly,  men  lack 
bread.  Is  it  not  the  business  of  religion  to 
say  why?  If  it  cannot  do  so,  shall  not 
scoffers  mock  its  ministers  as  Elias  mocked 
the  prophets  of  Baal.  .  .  .  What  answer 
can  those  ministers  give?  .  .  .  Here  is 
the  answer,  the  only  true  answer:  If  men 
lack  bread  it  is  not  that  God  has  not  done 
His  part  in  providing  it.  .  .  .  It  is,  that 
impiously  violating  the  benevolent  intentions 
of  their  Creator,  men  have  made  land  pri- 
vate property,  and  thus  given  into  the  ex- 
clusive ownership  of  the  few  the  provision 
that  a  bountiful  Father  has  made  for  all. 
Any  other  answer  than  that,  no  matter  how 
it  may  be  shrouded  in  the  mere  forms 
of  religion,  is  practically  an  atheistical 
answer."  [ !!] 

*^7.  That  the  private  ownership  of  land 
stimulates  industry,  increases  ivealth,  and 
attaches  men  to  the  soil  and  to  their  coun- 
try." This  sentence  refers  to  a  passage  in 
the  second  part  of  the  Encyclical,  where  the 
Pope  says:  *'We  have  seen  that  this  great 
labor  question  can  not  be  solved  except  by 


90     HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII. 

assuming  as  a  principle  that  private  owner- 
ship [in  land]  must  be  held  sacred  and  in- 
violate. The  law,  therefore,  should  favor 
ownership,  and  its  policy  should  be  to  in- 
duce as  many  of  the  people  as  possible  to 
become  owners.  Many  excellent  results  will 
follow  from  this;  and  first  of  all,  property 
will  certainly  become  more  equally  divided. 
.  .  .  Another  consequence  will  be  the 
greater  abundance  of  the  fruits  of  the  earth. 
Men  always  work  harder  and  more  readily 
when  they  work  on  that  which  is  their  own; 
nay,  they  learn  to  love  the  very  soil.  .  .  . 
And  a  third  advantage  would  arise  from 
this ;  men  would  cling  to  the  country  in  which 
they  were  born    .    .     ." 

Against  the  three  points  contained  in  the 
heading  Henry  George  has  nothing  to  say. 
But  he  thinks  the  advantages  of  the  Single 
Tax  system  would  be  far  greater,  in  par- 
ticular the  security  of  the  products  of  labor 
and  the  permanence  of  landed  possession. 
In  another  chapter  we  shall  demonstrate 
the  injustice  of  the  single  tax  as  a  system  of 
taxation.  Suffice  it  to  remind  our  Agrarian 
economist,  that  in  his  theory  all  holders  of 
land  are  mere  tenants  of  the  State ;  they  are, 
therefore,  at  the  mercy  of  this  universal 
landlord,  who  can  change  the  tenants  from 


HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII.      91 

one  place  to  another  by  a  simple  decree  of 
the  party  in  power,  just  as  the  holders  of 
State  offices  are  now  changed  from  time  to 
time. 

"(9.  That  the  right  to  possess  private 
property  in  land  is  from  nature,  not  from 
man;  that  the  State  has  no  right  to  abolish  it, 
and  that  to  take  the  value  of  landoivnership 
in  taxation  would  he  unjust  and  cruel  to 
landowners." 

This  chapter  is  nothing  but  a  repetition  of 
former  assertions  plus  a  new  encomium  of  the 
Single  Tax.  We  might  call  it  a  summary  of 
what  has  preceded.  '  *  That  private  property 
in  the  products  of  labor  is  from  nature,  is 
clear,  for  nature  gives  such  things  to  labor 
and  to  labor  alone.  Of  every  article  of  this 
kind,  we  know  that  it  came  into  being  as 
nature's  response  to  the  exertion  of  an  indi- 
vidual man  or  of  individual  men — given  by 
nature  directly  and  exclusively  to  him  or  to 
them.  .  .  .  But  who  will  dare  trace  the 
individual  ownership  of  land  to  any  grant 
from  the  Maker  of  land!  What  does  nature 
give  to  such  ownership?  How  does  she  in 
any  way  recognize  *  it  ?  Will  anyone  show 
from  difference  of  form  or  feature,  of  stature 
or  complexion,  from  dissection  of  their  bodies 
or  analysis  of  their  powers  and  needs,  that 


92     HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII. 

one  man  was  intended  by  nature  to  own  land 
and  another  to  live  on  it  as  his  tenant?" 
This  is  a  na'ive  way  of  hiding  one 's  ignorance. 
Let  us  recapitulate  the  true  origin  of 
private  property.  The  right  of  property 
is  the  right  of  having  an  exterior  object  com- 
pletely and  exclusively  for  one's  own  use, 
so  as  to  be  able  to  dispose  of  it  fully  and  in- 
dependently of  others.  It  implies,  there- 
fore, a  special  connection  between  a  partic- 
ular object  and  an  individual  person  or  in- 
dividual persons.  Now  by  nature  no  such 
special  connection  exists,  all  things  being 
per  se  and  a  priori  ownerless.  How,  then, 
does  actual  ownership  arise?  It  arises  in 
each  case  from  a  concrete  fact.  In  the  case 
of  objects  which  are  as  yet  without  an  owner, 
this  fact  is  occupancy  or  occupation.  Occu- 
pancy is  the  taking  hold  of  an  ownerless 
object  with  the  express  intention  of  holding 
it  as  one's  own.  This  intention  is  expressed 
by  marking  the  object  so  as  to  distinguish 
it  from  others  not  appropriated.  Such  ways 
of  *' marking"  are  manifold,  according  to 
the  nature  of  the  objects,  e.  g.,  keeping  some- 
thing about  one's  person  or  in  one's  house; 
with  regard  to  land,  fencing  it  in,  but 
especially  physical  changes  by  improvements 
or  cultivation.    All  appropriation  by  occu- 


HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII.      93 

pancy  is  by  the  very  nature  of  this  act  limited 
and  may  be  further  restricted  by  positive 
laws.  Transfers  of  property  from  one 
owner  to  another  take  place  by  donation, 
bequests,  and  various  contracts.  All  these 
methods  and  transactions  imply  the  activity 
of  man  and  are  dependent  on  various  essen- 
tial conditions  and  the  just  laws  of  civil 
authority.  Hence  we  can  say  with  Leo  XIII. 
that,  whilst  by  nature  material  goods  are 
neither  owned  by  mankind  at  large  nor  by 
individual  men,  ''the  actual  distribution  of 
private  possessions,"  in  immovables  as  well 
as  movables,  is  effected  ''by  men's  industry 
and  according  to  the  laws  of  peoples."  So 
much  for  the  objections  of  Henry  George 
against  the  arguments  advanced  in  the  En- 
cyclical. 

In  his  Open  Letter  Mr.  George  aims  to 
disabuse  the  Pope  of  his  "one  false  and 
fatal  assumption,"  the  justice  of  individual 
landownership.  "If  your  Holiness  will  con- 
sider these  things  we  are  confident  that  in- 
stead of  defending  private  property  in  land 
you  will  condemn  it  with  anathema!"  "In 
sending  [this  letter]  to  you  personally  and 
in  advance  of  publication,  I  trust  that  it  may 
be  by  you  personally  read  and  weighed. 
.    .    .    I  trust  that  the  considerations  herein 


94     HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII. 

set  forth  may  induce  you  [to  question  the 
views  hitherto  held  by  you],  and  even  if  the 
burdens  and  cares  that  beset  you  shall  now 
make  impossible  the  careful  consideration 
that  should  precede  expression  by  one  in 
your  responsible  position  [!],  I  trust  that 
what  I  have  written  may  not  be  without  use 
to  others."  Finally,  "Wishing  for  your 
Holiness  the  chiefest  of  all  blessings,  that 
you  may  know  the  truth  and  be  freed  by 
the  truth,  .  .  .  and  with  the  profound  re- 
spect due  to  your  personal  character  and  to 
your  exalted  office,  I  am,  Yours  sincerely, 
Heney  George.  New  York,  September  11, 
1891." 

Henry  George  believed  that  his  letter  made 
a  deep  impression  on  Leo  XIII.  and  that  it 
had  attained  its  purpose.  This  we  learn 
from  a  communication  approvingly  quoted 
by  the  New  York  Freeman's  Journal,  Janu- 
ary 23,  1904.  "In  answering  a  correspond- 
ent of  the  New  York  Sun,  in  January,  1893, 
he  [Mr.  George]  said:  'That  the  Encyclical 
on  the  Condition  of  Labor  seemed  to  me  to 
condemn  the  Single  Tax  theory  is  true. 
But  it  made  it  clear  that  the  Pope  did  not 
rightly  understand  that  theory.  It  was  for 
this  reason  that  in  the  open  letter  to  whicli 
your  correspondent  refers,  I  asked  permis- 


HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  LEO  XIII.      95 

sion  to  lay  before  the  Pope  the  grounds  of 
our  belief  and  to  show  that  'our  postulates 
are  all  stated  or  implied  in  your  Encyclical/ 
and  that  'they  are  the  primary  perceptions 
of  human  reason,  the  fundamental  teachings 
of  the  Christian  faith;'  declaring  that  so 
far  from  avoiding,  'we  earnestly  seek  the 
judgment  of  religion,  the  tribunal  of  which 
your  Holiness,  as  the  head  of  the  largest 
body  of  Christians,  is  the  most  august  repre- 
sentative.' The  answer  has  come.  In  the 
reinstatement  of  Dr.  McGlynn,  on  a  correct 
presentation  of  Single  Tax  doctrines,  the 
highest  authority  of  the  Catholic  Church  [ ! !] 
has  declared  in  the  most  emphatic  manner 
that  there  is  nothing  in  them  inconsistent 
with  Catholic  faith." 

Dr.  Edward  McGlynn 's  case  will  be  con- 
sidered separately  in  the  light  of  docu- 
mentary evidence.  Had  Mr.  George's  Open 
Letter,  with  its  flimsy  objections  and  numer- 
ous absurdities,  brought  about  a  change  in 
the  Pope's  mind  and  made  him  renounce 
the  teaching  of  his  magnificent  Encyclical 
"Rerum  No  varum,"  verily  this  *' conver- 
sion" of  Leo  XIII.  to  the  Single  Tax  theory 
would  have  been  one  of  the  most  sensational 
events  in  the  history  of  the  papacy. 


VI. 


THE    "SINGLE    TAX,"    OR    THE    "NATURAL''    SYS- 
TEM   OP   TAXATION 

The  Henry  George  theory  of  landowner- 
ship  has  its  practical  application  in  the  so- 
called  ** Single  Tax."  The  former  is  the 
necessary  scientific  basis  of  the  latter. 
Single  Tax  men  take  a  particular  pride  not 
only  in  having  simplified,  or  rather  sup- 
planted, the  complicated  and  expensive 
methods  of  taxation  hitherto  in  vogue,  but 
especially  also  in  having  discovered  the  only 
method  that  is  based  on  nature  and  that 
therefore  may  rightly  be  called  *' natural 
taxation"  or  the  <' natural  tax."  However, 
since  the  scientific  basis  of  this  much  vaunted 
"natural  tax"  has  been  shown,  in  a  previous 
chapter,  to  be  philosophically  false,  the 
"natural  tax"  itself  can  not  but  be  a  mere 
phantom  of  the  imagination,  like  the  theory 
from  which  it  springs. 

The  following  extracts  from  Mr.  George's 
Open  Letter  to  Pope  Leo  XIIL  will  give  the 
96 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  97 

reader  the  gist  of  his  luminous  and  eloquent 
exposition  of  the  subject: 

**We  propose,  leaving  land  in  the  private 
possession  [without  ownership]  of  indi- 
viduals, with  full  liberty  on  their  part  to 
give,  sell  or  bequeath  it,  simply  to  levy  on 
it  for  public  uses  a  tax  that  shall  equal  the 
annual  value  of  the  land  itself,  irrespective 
of  the  use  made  of  it  or  the  improvements 
made  upon  it.  And  since  this  would  provide 
amply  for  the  need  of  public  revenues,  we 
would  accompany  this  tax  on  land  values 
with  the  repeal  of  all  taxes  now  levied  on 
the  products  and  processes  of  industry — 
which  taxes,  since  they  take  from  the  earn- 
ings of  labor,  we  hold  to  be  infringements 
of  the  right  of  property."    .     .    . 

''No  sooner  does  the  State  arise  than,  as 
we  all  know,  it  needs  revenues.  .  .  . 
With  the  growth  of  population  and  advance 
of  civilization  the  functions  of  the  State  in- 
crease and  larger  and  larger  revenues  are 
needed.  Now,  He  that  made  the  world  and 
placed  man  in  it,  He  that  preordained  civil- 
ization as  the  means  whereby  man  might  rise 
to  higher  powers  and  become  more  and  more 
conscious  of  the  works  of  his  Creator,  must 
have  foreseen  the  increasing  need  for  State 

revenues  and  have  made  provision  for  it. 

7 


98  THE  SINGLE  TAX 

That  is  to  say:  the  increasing  need  for  pub- 
lic revenues  with  social  advance,  being 
a  natural,  God-ordained  need,  there  must  be 
a  right  way  of  raising  them — some  way  that 
we  can  truly  say  is  the  way  intended  by  God. 
It  is  clear  that  this  right  way  of  raising 
public  revenues  must  accord  with  the  moral 
law. 

' '  Hence :  It  must  not  take  from  individuals 
what  rightfully  belongs  to  individuals" — 
in  other  words:  a  rightful  tax  can  not  be 
one  which  is  to  be  paid  from  the  individual's 
rightful  property  or  from  his  own  pocket! 
Why  not  ?  Because  * '  God  can  not  contradict 
Himself  nor  impose  on  His  creatures  laws 
that  clash.  If  it  be  [therefore]  God's  com- 
mand to  men  that  they  should  not  steal — 
that  is  to  say,  that  they  should  respect  the 
right  of  property  which  each  one  has  in  the 
fruits  of  his  labor;"  God  can  not  have  or- 
dained that  men  should  be  deprived  of  part 
of  their  earnings  or  of  their  money  in  order 
to  enable  the  State  to  carry  on  its  various 
functions.  But  that  is  the  case  in  ' '  all  taxes 
now  levied  on  the  products  and  processes 
of  industry."  Therefore  we  hear  Henry 
George  declare  that  he  holds  all  those  taxes, 
**  since    they    take    from    the    earnings    of 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  99 

labor,"  to  be  unjust,  ''to  be  infringements 
of  the  right  of  property ! ' ' 

This  is  a  precious  bit  of  modern  eco- 
nomics! When  the  Single  Tax  system  will 
once  have  been  established,  you  will  have 
to  pay  taxes,  but  not  from  your  own  money. 
And  on  the  same  principle  that ' '  God  can  not 
contradict  Himself,"  you  will  have  to  pay 
your  physician  in  case  of  sickness,  but  never 
from  your  own  pocket.  Also  your  tailor, 
your  baker,  your  grocer,  etc.,  must  not  expect 
to  be  paid  from  your  own  money,  since  this 
would  be  an  ''infringement  of  the  right  of 
property."  In  the  new  era  every  one  will 
always  and  everywhere  "respect  the  right 
of  property  which  each  one  has  in  the  fruits 
of  his  labor"! 

Henry  George  continues:  "To  consider 
what  we  propose — the  raising  of  public  reve- 
nues by  a  single  tax  on  the  value  of  land  ir- 
respective of  improvements — is  to  see  that 
in  all  respects  this  does  conform  to  the  moral 
law.  Let  me  ask  your  Holiness  to  keep  in 
mind  that  the  value  we  propose  to  tax,  the 
value  of  land  irrespective  of  improvements, 
does  not  come  from  any  exertion  of  labor  or 
investment  of  capital  on  or  in  it — the  values 
produced  in  this  way  being  values  of  im- 


100  THE  SINGLE  TAX 

provements  which  we  would  exempt.  The 
value  of  land  irrespective  of  improvement 
is  the  value  that  attaches  to  land  by  reason 
of  increasing  population  or  social  progress. 
This  is  a  value  that  always  goes  to  the  owner 
as  owner,  and  never  does  and  never  can  go 
to  the  user;  for  if  the  user  be  a  different 
person  from  the  owner  he  must  always  pay 
the  owner  for  it  in  rent  or  in  purchase 
money;  while  if  the  user  be  also  the  owner, 
it  is  as  owner,  not  as  user,  that  he  receives 
it,  and  by  selling  [  ?]  or  renting  the  land  he 
can,  as  owner,  continue  to  receive  it  after 
he  ceases  to  be  a  user. 

''Thus,  taxes  on  land  irrespective  of  im- 
provement can  not  lessen  the  reward  of 
industry,  nor  add  to  prices,  nor  in  any  way 
take  from  the  individual  what  belongs  to  the 
individual.  [That  would  be  downright  rob- 
bery!] They  can  only  take  the  value  that 
attaches  to  land  by  the  growth  of  the  com- 
munity, and  which  therefore  belongs  to  the 
community  as  a  whole. 

*'To  take  land  values  for  the  State,  abol- 
ishing all  taxes  on  the  products  of  labor, 
would  therefore  leave  to  the  laborer  the  full 
produce  of  labor,  to  the  individual  all  that 
rightfully  belongs  to  the  individual." 

This   passage   contains   the  whole  justifi- 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  101 

cation  Henry  George  can  give  and  does  give 
for  the  Single  Tax.  The  land  value  is  justly- 
collected  as  a  tax  from  every  '^ possessor  and 
user"  of  land  for  two  reasons:  (1.)  because 
the  land  value  always  goes  to  the  owner  as 
such;  now  the  State  or  the  community  as 
such,  not  the  individual,  is  the  real  owner  of 
the  land ;  hence  the  land  value  must  go  to  the 
community  or  State;  (2.)  the  land  value  does 
not  come  from  labor  or  from  investment  of 
capital,  but  arises  merely  from  the  growth 
of  the  community  and  from  social  progress; 
hence  it  belongs  by  right  to  the  community 
or  State.  With  these  two  reasons  the  Single 
Tax  stands  or  falls.  Here  we  have  the  cru- 
cial test. 

The  importance  of  this  point,  we  think, 
will  justify  our  adding  to  the  quotations 
already  given  the  following  passages  from 
Progress  and  Poverty. 

In  Book  VII.,  ch.  III.  (p.  262),  Henry 
George,  having  cited  these  sentences  from 
John  Stuart  Mill:  ''The  land  of  Ireland,  the 
land  of  every  country,  belongs  to  the  people 
of  that  country.  The  individuals  called  land- 
owners have  no  right  in  morality  and  justice 
to  anything  but  the  rent,  or  compensation 
for  its  salable  value" — exclaims  indignantly: 
*'In  the  name  of  the  Prophet — figs!    If  the 


102  THE  SINGLE  TAX 

land  of  any  country  belong  to  the  people  of 
that  country,  what  right,  in  morality  and 
justice,  have  the  individuals  called  land- 
owners to  the  rent?  If  the  land  belong  to 
the  people,  why  in  the  name  of  morality  and 
justice  should  the  people  pay  its  salable 
value  for  their  own?" 

Equally  emphatic  is  his  answer  to  the 
author  of  the  ''synthetic  philosophy." — 
''Herbert  Spencer  says:  'Had  we  to  deal 
with  the  parties  who  originally  robbed  the 
human  race  of  its  heritage,  we  might  make 
short  work  of  the  matter.'  Why  not  make 
short  work  of  the  matter  anyhow?  For  this 
robbery  is  not  like  the  robbery  of  a  horse  or 
of  a  sum  of  money,  that  ceases  with  the  act. 
It  is  a  fresh  and  continuous  robbery,  that 
goes  on  every  day  and  every  hour.  .  .  . 
It  is  not  merely  a  robbery  in  the.  past ;  it  is 
a  robbery  in  the  present — a  robbery  that 
deprives  of  their  birth-right  the  infants  that 
are  now  coming  into  the  world !  Why  should 
we  hesitate  about  making  short  work  of  such 
a  system?  ...  If  the  land  belong  to  the 
people,  why  continue  to  permit  landowners 
to  take  the  rent,  or  compensate  them  in  any 
manner  for  the  loss  of  rent  ?  Consider  what 
rent  is.  It  does  not  arise  spontaneously 
from  land ;  it  is  due  to  nothing  that  the  land- 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  103 

owners  have  done.  It  represents  a  value 
created  by  the  whole  community.  Let  the 
landholders  have,  if  you  please,  all  that  the 
possession  of  the  land  would  give  them  in 
the  absence  of  the  rest  of  the  community. 
But  rent,  the  creation  of  the  whole  com- 
munity, necessarily  belongs  to  the  whole 
community.'* 

Let  us  now  consider  the  two  reasons  ad- 
vanced by  Mr.  George  with  such  eloquence 
and  fervor. 

First,  he  argues :  If  the  land  of  a  country 
belongs  to  the  people,  the  community  of  that 
country,  then  the  land  value  necessarily 
must  go  to  the  community  of  that  country; 
this  value  always  goes  to  the  owner  as  such. 
Very  good.  But  this  "if"  is  not  verified. 
To  maintain,  as  Mr.  George  does,  that  the 
land  of  a  country  belongs  to  the  people  of 
that  country  as  a  whole,  and  not  to  the  indi- 
viduals who  have  by  some  title  or  other  ac- 
quired parts  of  it,  is  false. 

As  to  the  second  reason :  the  land  value  is 
not  the  product  of  the  individual's  labor  or 
investment  of  capital — we  readily  grant  the 
statement;  but  permit  us  to  ask:  Is  it  the 
product  of  the  community's  labor  or  invest- 
ment of  capital?  Evidently  it  is  not;  it 
arises,  as  our  economist  himself  says,  from 


104  THE  SINGLE  TAX 

the  growth  of  the  community  and  from  social 
progress. 

The  land  value  of  which  there  is  question 
here,  is  not  an  inherent  physical  quality  of 
the  land,  which  makes  it  better  or  more  fer- 
tile and  consequently  more  desirable  or  more 
valuable.  Hence  it  is  not  and  need  not  be 
produced  by  the  forces  of  nature  nor  by  any 
kind  of  labor.  The  object  being  given,  its 
increasing  or  decreasing  value  is  consequent 
upon  certain  extrinsic  circumstances,  in  some- 
what the  same  way  as  a  good,  substantial 
meal  has  a  greater  ''value"  for  a  hungry 
man  than  for  one  having  little  or  no  appe- 
tite. The  meal  has  a  producer,  but  not  its 
value  as  such ;  the  latter  supposes  merely  an 
empty  stomach. 

The  actual  value  (exchange  value)  of  an 
object  is  nothing  else  than  its  fitness  or  ca- 
pacity of  being  exchanged  for  other  useful 
objects.  This  springs  directly  from  the  gen- 
eral estimation  of  men  based  on  the  useful- 
ness of  the  object  to  satisfy  some  want  or 
desire,  and  on  the  greater  or  lesser  difficulty 
of  obtaining  it.^)  Suppose  a  community  in 
a  certain  stage  of  civilization,  and  you  have 

1  Cf.  A.  Vermeersch,  S.J.,  Quaestiones  de  Justitia.  1901, 
N.  336.     "Vera  ratio  valoris." 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  105 

ipso  facto  certain  needs  and  desires  in  that 
community  which  are  to  be  satisfied.  Now 
suppose,  besides,  various  goods  capable  of 
satisfying  those  wants  and  desires,  and  also 
certain  facilities  of  communication  and  of  in- 
tercourse which  make  the  exchange  of  dif- 
ferent objects  in  that  community  feasible; 
then,  without  any  further  exertion,  labor  or 
production,  the  various  useful  objects, 
whether  merchandise  or  real  estate,  will,  by 
common  estimation,  possess  a  certain  ex- 
change value;  and  this  value  will  for  the 
selfsame  unchanged  object  vary,  decrease 
or  increase  according  as  the  extrinsic  cir- 
cumstances vary.  To  whom,  then,  does 
the  exchange  value  of  such  an  object  be- 
long? Evidently  to  nobody  else  but  the 
owner  of  that  object.  Being  really  and 
truly  the  owner  of  the  object,  of  the  entire 
object,  he  owns  it  with  all  that  is  in  it, 
whether  actually  or  potentially;  he  owns  it 
with  all  its  usefulness  to  satisfy  the  needs 
and  desires  of  the  owner  himself,  i.  e.,  with 
its  ''use  value";  he  owns  it  with  all  its  ca- 
pacity of  obtaining  by  exchange  some  other 
good,  i.  e.,  with  its  ** exchange  value."  The 
exchange  value  no  less  than  the  use  value 
belongs  in  justice  to  the  owner  of  the  object ; 


106  THE  SINGLE  TAX 

he  enjoys  all  the  advantage  in  case  of  an  in- 
crease, as  he  has  to  bear  all  the  ensuing  dis- 
advantage in  case  of  a  decrease. 

This  common  sense  answer  does  not  fit 
into  the  arbitrary  systems  of  "modern  econ- 
omists," but  it  is  sound  philosophy  for  all 
that.  It  is  but  an  application  of  the  saying, 
"Res  fructificat  domino,"  which  is  a  maxim 
of  natural  as  well  as  of  positive  jurispru- 
dence. He  who  denies  the  owner  of  an  ob- 
ject its  exchange  value,  denies  his  right  of 
ownership.  For  what  does  it  mean  to  say: 
"This  object,  e.  g.,  this  bicycle,  belongs  to 
me."  It  means,  according  to  all  men,  that 
he  who  can  truly  say  so,  has  the  full,  free, 
and  exclusive  right  of  disposing  of  it,  and 
that  he  can,  independently  of  all  others,  en- 
joy the  advantages  that  result  for  him  from 
such  disposal  or  use.  He  may  ride  on  his  bi- 
cycle for  the  sake  of  exercise;  he  may  shut 
it  up  in  a  store-room ;  he  may  give  it  away  as 
a  present;  he  may  also,  if  he  chooses,  ex- 
change it  for  some  other  useful  object.  If 
he  makes  such  an  exchange,  that  which  he 
thus  acquires  becomes  as  truly  and  completely 
his,  as  was  the  object  with  which  he  parted. 
To  deprive  him,  therefore,  of  the  whole  or 
of  a  part  of  the  object  acquired,  would  man- 
ifestly be  an  infringement  of  the  right  of 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  107 

property,  and  to  deny  him  the  right  to  the 
whole  benefit  of  the  exchange,  would  in  re- 
ality be  to  deny  or  destroy  his  right  of 
ownership. 

Hence  it  is  that  mankind's  natural  sense 
of  justice  applies  this  principle  constantly 
to  every  species  of  property.  Take  a  horse 
dealer  who  owns  two  hundred  fine  horses. 
Suppose  from  some  cause  or  other  the  price 
of  these  animals  rises;  then  his  gain,  which 
all  acknowledge  to  be  truly  his,  will  perhaps 
be  twice  as  large  as  it  would  have  been  under 
ordinary  circumstances.  The  owner  of  a 
dairy  farm  will  with  the  same  amount  of 
work  make  greater  or  smaller  gains  accord- 
ing as  the  price  of  milk,  butter,  and  cheese 
rises  or  falls.  The  exchange  value  is  an  eco- 
nomical growth,  ''increment"  or  fruit  of  the 
object;  it  belongs,  therefore,  to  the  owner 
of  the  object  no  less  than  the  natural  fruit 
of  a  tree  belongs  to  the  owner  of  the  tree. 
The  ownership  of  an  object  and  the  owner- 
ship of  its  fruit  are  inseparably  connected. 
In  order  to  be  logically  justified  in  denying 
the  right  to  the  land  value,  one  must  neces- 
sarily deny  the  ownership  of  the  land;  and 
in  order  justly  to  claim  the  land  value  for 
the  community,  he  must  necessarily  declare 
the  community  to  be  the  universal  landlord. 


108  THE  SINGLE  TAX 

This  Henry  George  understood  and  he  was 
sincere  enough  to  state  it  publicly.  Hence 
his  bold  declaration  in  Progress  and  Poverty: 
'*If  private  property  in  land  be  just,  then  is 
the  remedy  I  propose  a  false  one ;  if,  on  the 
contrary,  private  property  in  land  be  unjust, 
then  is  this  remedy  the  true  one." 

But  Henry  George  not  only  maintains  that 
''confiscating  rent"  is  in  accordance  with  the 
moral  law;  he  goes  still  farther.  He  holds 
it  to  be  the  God-intended  way  of  raising 
the  necessary  revenues  of  the  State,  and  sees, 
moreover,  in  the  natural  provision  of  this 
never-failing  source  of  public  revenue  an  ad- 
mirable proof  of  the  divine  wisdom  and  good- 
ness on  behalf  of  mankind.  Let  us  listen,  for 
a  few  moments,  to  his  enthusiastic  expatia- 
tions  in  the  Open  Letter  to  Pope  Leo  XIII.: 

''But,  further:  that  God  has  intended  the 
State  to  obtain  the  revenues  it  needs  by  the 
taxation  of  land  values  is  shown  by  the  same 
order  and  degree  of  evidence  that  shows  that 
God  has  intended  the  milk  of  the  mother  for 
the  nourishment  of  the  babe.  [ ! !] .  See  how 
close  is  the  analogy.  .  .  .  See  how  with 
the  growth  of  such  [large]  cities  the  one 
thing  that  steadily  increases  in  value  is  land ; 
how  the  opening  of  roads,  the  building  of 
railways,  the  making  of  any  public  improve- 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  109 

ment,  adds  to  the  value  of  land.  Is  it  not 
clear  that  here  is  a  natural  law — that  is  to 
say  a  tendency  willed  by  the  Creator?  Can 
it  mean  anything  else  than  that  He  who  or- 
dained the  State  with  its  needs  has  in  the  val- 
ues which  attach  to  land  provided  the  means 
to  meet  those  needs'?     .     .     . 

''The  Eight  Reverend  Dr.  Thomas  Nulty, 
Bishop  of  Meath,  who  sees  all  this  as  clearly 
as  we  do,  in  pointing  out  to  the  clergy  and 
laity  of  his  diocese  [April  2nd,  1881]  the  de- 
sign of  Divine  Providence  that  the  rent  of 
land  should  be  taken  for  the  community,  says : 
'I  think,  therefore,  that  I  may  fairly  infer, 
on  the  strength  of  authority  as  well  as  of 
reason,  that  the  people  are  and  always  must 
be  the  real  owners  of  the  land  of  their  coun- 
try. [The  philosophically  false  and  theolog- 
ically heretical  doctrine  of  common  (na- 
tional) land  ownership!]  This  great  social 
fact  appears  to  me  to  be  of  incalculable  im- 
portance. .  .  .  There  is,  moreover,  a 
charm  and  a  peculiar  beauty  in  the  clearness 
with  which  it  reveals  the  wisdom  and  benevo- 
lence of  the  designs  of  Providence  in  the  ad- 
mirable provision  He  has  made  for  the  wants 
and  the  necessities  of  that  state  of  social 
existence  of  which  He  is  author.  ...  A 
vast  public  property,  a  great  national  fund, 


110  THE  SINGLE  TAX 

has  been  placed  under  tlie  dominion  and  at 
the  disposal  of  the  nation  to  supply  itself 
abundantly  with  resources  necessary  to  liqui- 
date the  expenses  of  its  government,  the  ad- 
ministration of  its  laws,  and  the  education  of 
its  youth,  and  to  enable  it  to  provide  for  the 
suitable  sustentation  and  support  of  its  crim- 
inal and  pauper  population.'    .     .     . 

*' There  is,  indeed,  as  Bishop  Nulty  says, 
a  peculiar  beauty  in  the  clearness  with  which 
the  wisdom  and  benevolence  of  Providence 
are  revealed  in  this  great  social  fact,  the  pro- 
vision made  for  the  common  needs  of  society 
in  what  economists  call  the  law  of  rent.  Of 
all  the  evidences  that  natural  religion  gives, 
it  is  this  that  most  clearly  shows  the  existence 
of  a  beneficent  God  and  most  conclusively 
silences  the  doubts  that  in  our  days  lead  so 
many  to  materialism." 

These  enthusiastic  sentiments  of  Bishop 
Nulty  and  Henry  George,  alas!  are  like  the 
emotions  called  forth  by  the  reading  of  a 
thrilling  novel.  They  are  based  on  fiction, 
not  on  truth  and  reality.  There  is  no  such 
"vast  public  property,"  no  such  ''great  na- 
tional fund" !  And  there  can  be  none !  For, 
as  Leo  XIII.  in  harmony  with  ancient  and 
modern  philosophy  has  so  clearly  demon- 
strated in  his  grand  Encyclical  which  Henry 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  111 

George  tried  to  refute  by  bold  assertions  and 
rhetorical  phrases,  the  welfare  of  the  indi- 
vidual, of  the  family,  and  of  human  society 
at  large  demands  that  temporal  goods,  land 
as  well  as  movables,  should  be  divided  and 
owned  severally.  Hence  God  did  not  give 
the  earth  to  the  whole  of  mankind  as  their 
common  property  or  the  land  of  a  country 
to  the  nation  of  that  country  as  a  whole, 
but  He  wished  the  earth  to  be  divided,  '  *  leav- 
ing the  actual  distribution  of  private  posses- 
sions to  men's  industry  and  to  the  law  of 
peoples."  Such  is  human  nature  and  such, 
therefore,  are  the  designs  of  God's  wisdom 
and  benevolence. 

The  beauty  which  Bishop  Nulty  and  Henry 
George  admire  in  the  design  of  ''taking  the 
rent  of  land  for  the  community, "  or  of  ' '  rais- 
ing the  public  revenues  by  a  single  tax  on  the 
value  of  land  irrespective  of  improvements, ' ' 
is  no  beauty  at  all,  but  an  insult  to  justice. 
For  what  does  the  Single  Tax  practically 
mean?  It  means  neither  more  nor  less  than 
this:  all  taxes  are  to  be  paid  by  those  who 
own  land;  all  others,  even  if  they  possess 
millions,  go  scot  free.  The  injustice  of  such 
a  system  of  taxation  is  so  glaring  that  one 
must  be  blinded  by  prejudice  or  lack  every 
notion  of  equity  not  to  see  it.    Moreover, 


112  THE  SINGLE  TAX 

that  the  laying  of  all  taxes  on  landowners 
would  inevitably  ruin  agriculture  and  thus 
jeopardize  the  prosperity  of  nations,  is  so  ob- 
vious an  inference  that  the  arbitrary  and  oft- 
repeated  assertions  of  Henry  George  to  the 
contrary  can  not  in  the  least  dim  its  evidence. 


VII. 

DE.   EDWARD   Mc  GLYNN   AND   HENEY   GEOEGE 

Henry  George  had  no  greater  admirer  nor 
stauncher  follower  than  Rev.  Dr.  Edward 
McGlynn.  At  the  funeral  ceremonies  which 
were  held  for  Mr.  George  in  Grand  Central 
Palace,  New  York,  October  30th,  1897,  Dr. 
McGlynn  made  the  following  remarks : 

**We  stand  upon  ground  that  is  made  sa- 
cred by  what  remains  of  a  man  who  was 
raised  up  by  a  peculiar  providence  of  a 
Father  in  Heaven  to  deliver  to  men  a  mes- 
sage of  truth,  of  righteousness,  of  justice, 
and  of  peace  on  earth.  .  .  .  This  man 
was  not  merely  a  philosopher  and  a  sage, 
but  he  was  a  seer,  a  prophet,  a  forerunner 
and  preacher  sent  by  God.  .  .  .  Why  is 
this  vast  crowd  here  to-day  and  a  vaster 
crowd  seeking  admission  outside  to  honor  the 
memory  of  Henry  George?  Why  is  it  that 
vast  multitudes  have  passed  this  coffin  to- 
day? It  is  because  there  was  a  man  sent  of 
God,  and  his  name  was  Henry  George.  And 
8  113 


il4  DR.  McGLYNN 

when  God  has  sent  such  a  messenger  with 
such  a  message,  the  hearts  of  mankind  are 
stirred  to  the  depths.  .  .  .  That  book 
[Progress  and  Poverty]  is  the  work  of  a 
sage,  of  a  seer,  of  a  philosopher,  of  a  poet. 
It  is  not  merely  political  economy,  it  is  not 
merely  political  philosophy,  but  it  is  a  poem, 
a  prophecy,  a  prayer." 

In  a  communication  prepared  for  the  press 
Dr.  McGlynn  said  of  his  deceased  friend :  ' '  I 
believe  that  those  gifts  of  his  marked  him 
out  singularly  as  a  man  raised  up  by  the 
providence  of  God  to  revise  and  to  perfect 
the  teachings  of  the  fundamental  political 
and  economic  verities  that  are  absolutely  es- 
sential to  the  preservation  of  the  Republic 
and  the  healing  of  nations.  I  learned  long 
since  that  Mr.  George's  was  essentially  a 
religious  spirit.  .  .  .  He  believed,  and  I 
believed  with  him,  that  the  carrying  out  of 
his  magnificent  political  philosophy  and  econ- 
omy would  make  practical  the  preamble  of 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  and  bring 
about  justice  and  equality  in  this  world  and 
a  better  commonwealth  and  a  truer  Republic. 
.  .  .  It  was  for  these  reasons  that  I  gave 
heart  and  hand  to  Henry  George  in  his  work 
and  that  I  took  active  part  in  his  first  won- 
derful mayoralty  campaign   [1886]    and  as 


AND  HENRY  GEORGE  115 

far  as  I  could  with  propriety  helped  in  the 
present  one  [1897].  I  have  made  no  secret  of 
my  sympathy,  and  I  would  have  all  those 
whom  I  could  influence  anywhere  to  know  that 
the  doctrines  of  Mr.  George  are  in  the  fullest 
consonance  with  the  teachings  of  the  true  re- 
ligion, with  the  essentials  of  that  religion  of 
the  brotherhood  of  man  under  the  fatherhood 
of  God." 

It  is  not  our  intention  to  asperse  the  per- 
sonal character  of  Mr.  George  or  to  question 
the  sincerity  of  his  purpose  to  better  the 
condition  of  his  fellow-men.  We  are  deal- 
ing exclusively  with  his  economic  system  and 
teaching  as  contained  in  his  published  works. 
After  having  carefully  examined  his  system 
in  all  its  details  and  compared  it  with  the 
principles  of  sound  philosophy,  and  partic- 
ularly with  the  explicit  and  unmistakable 
teaching  of  the  Encyclical  ''Rerum  Nova- 
rum,"  we  are  forced  to  characterize  Henry 
George  thus :  If  he  was  a  poet,  he  was  a  poet 
of  mere  fiction ;  if  he  was  a  prophet,  he  was  a 
false  prophet ;  if  he  delivered  to  men  a  mes- 
sage, it  was  not  one  of  truth  and  justice.  His 
entire  economic  system  is  one  huge  error, 
conflicting  alike  with  human  reason,  with  ec- 
clesiastical teaching,  and  with  divine  revela- 
tion.   It  is  Agrarian  Socialism,  but  Socialism     y^ 


V 


116  DR.  McGLYNN 

in  its  proper  meaning,  undermining  the  very 
foundation  of  a  well-ordered  human  existence 
and  utterly  destructive  of  the  social  order. 

The  same  verdict  applies,  of  course,  to  Dr. 
McGlynn's  teaching,  which,  according  to  his 
words  quoted  above,  is  none  other  than  that 
of  Henry  George.  About  this  there  can  not 
be  the  least  doubt.  There  exists  a  clear  and 
explicit  statement  of  his  economic  views, 
written  by  the  Doctor  himself,  and,  we  are 
told,  *  *  approved  by  Henry  George,  in  a  letter 
to  the  New  York  Sun,  as  a  correct  exposition 
of  his  land  theory."  Undoubtedly,  ''Henry 
George  was  the  best  judge  of  a  correct  state- 
ment of  his  own  principles." 

We  might,  therefore,  dismiss  said  state- 
ment as  containing  nothing  that  we  have  not 
already  met  with  and  rejected  in  Mr. 
George's  writings.  But  certain  events  con- 
nected with  that  document  have  caused  in 
some  minds  such  a  confusion  concerning  the 
main  issue,  that  there  seems  to  be  no  hope 
of  removing  it  until  we  understand  clearly, 
on  the  merits  of  the  statement  itself,  whether 
or  not  it  is  to  be  judged  orthodox.  About 
this,  as  about  all  other  points,  we  would  have 
the  reader  judge  for  himself.  We  shall  sub- 
mit to  him  the  text  of  the  statement  without 
any  omissions,  interspersing  only  such  re- 


AND  HENRY  GEORGE  117 

marks  as  will  point  out  or  summarize  the  real 
meaning  of  the  Doctor  or  show  the  opposition 
of  his  tenets  to  the  teachings  of  Leo  XIII. 
The  entire  document  fills  one  and  a  half  col- 
umn in  the  New  York  Freeman's  Journal 
of  February  6th,  1904.  It  will  be  sufficient 
for  our  purpose  to  quote  the  first  half.  It 
runs  thus : 

**  All  men  are  endowed  by  the  law  of  nature 
with  the  right  to  life  and  to  the  pursuit  of 
happiness,  and  therefore  with  the  right  to 
exert  their  energies  upon  those  natural  boun- 
ties without  which  labor  or  life  is  impossi- 
ble." 

The  "natural  bounties"  here  spoken  of,  as 
we  shall  learn  presently,  are  *'the  earth." 
The  term  is  a  favorite  expression  of  Henry 
George  and  may  almost  be  considered  one 
of  his  technical  terms.  The  second  half  of 
the  sentence  quoted  is  vague  and  obscure  for 
the  "uninitiated"  reader;  the  initiated  will 
find  in  it  the  embryo  from  which  the  whole 
theory  of  common  landownership  is  easily 
evolved.  In  the  same  manner  Henry  George 
succeeded  in  smuggling  his  theory  into  the 
fifth  and  sixth  of  the  "postulates"  with 
which  he  begins  his  Open  Letter  to  Pope  Leo 

xin. 

"God  has  granted  those  natural  bounties. 


118  DR.  McGLYNN 

that  is  to  say,  the  earth,  to  mankind  in  gen- 
eral, so  that  no  part  of  it  has  been  assigned 
to  any  one  in  particular,  and  so  that  the 
limits  of  private  possession  have  been  left 
to  be  fixed  by  man's  own  industry  and  the 
laws  of  individual  peoples." 

Leo  XIII.  writes:  **Deus  (enim)  generi 
hominum  donavisse  terram  in  commune  di- 
citur,  .  .  .  quia  partem  nullam  cuique  as- 
signavit  possidendam,  industriae  hominum 
institutisque  populorum  permissa  privatarum 
possessionum  descriptione." 

These  two  quotations  resemble  each  other 
strikingly.  Is  the  almost  absolute  identity 
of  the  two  statements  a  mere  chance?  The 
wording  is  the  same  and  yet,  what  Dr.  Mc- 
Glynn  asserts  in  his  declaration  is  diametric- 
ally opposed  to  what  Leo  XIII.  teaches  in  his 
Encyclical.   The  following  will  make  this  clear. 

**God  has  granted  the  earth  to  mankind  in 
general,"  says  the  Doctor.  Here  he  affirms 
the  common  ownership  of  the  earth  by  man- 
kind at  large.  This  common  ownership  he 
designates  a  little  farther  on  as  the  "common 
right  to  natural  bounties"  or  the  ''dominion 
over  the  natural  bounties,"  and  adds  that 
''the  maintenance  of  this  dominion  over  the 
natural  bounties  is  a  primary  function  and 
duty  of  the  organized  community." 


AND  HENRY  GEORGE  119 

The  Doctor  mentions  also  ''the  limits  of 
private  possession"  (of  portions  of  the  land). 
What  does  he  mean  by  this  "private  posses- 
sion ' '  ?  He  means  * '  possession ' '  in  the  Geor- 
gian sense,  as  distinct  from  and  exclusive 
of  ownership,  or  property,  i.  e.,  mere  ten- 
antcy.  This  is  evident  from  the  paragraphs 
immediately  following,  where  he  carefully 
distinguishes  between  ''private  property  and 
dominion  in  the  fruits  of  industry  or  in  what 
is  produced  by  labor  out  of  those  natural 
bounties, ' '  on  the  one  hand,  and  ' '  the  use  and 
undisturbed,  permanent,  exclusive  private 
possession  of  portions  of  the  natural  boun- 
ties," on  the  other.  **Such  exclusive  posses- 
sion," we  are  told,  "is  necessary  to  the  own- 
ership, use,  and  enjoyment  by  the  individual 
of  the  fruits  and  products  of  his  industry." 

Hence,  according  to  Dr.  McGlynn,  there 
exist  two  kinds  of  private  or  individual 
right,  viz.,  the  right  of  "possession,"  as  dis- 
tinct from  ownership,  dominion  or  property, 
of  portions  of  the  land,  and  the  right  of 
"ownership,"  (dominion  or  property)  in  the 
fruits  and  products  of  one's  industry.  Over 
and  above  these  two  individual  or  private 
rights  we  have  the  common  right  of  owner- 
ship (dominion)  in  the  land  itself,  vested  in 
the  community   as    such.    We  need  hardly 


120  DR.  McGLYNN 

mention  that  with  regard  to  one  and  the  same 
object  common  and  private  ownership  ex- 
clude each  other.  Hence  the  assertion  of 
common  landownership  implies  the  negation 
of  private  landownership,  just  as  the  affirm- 
ation of  private  property  in  the  fruits  of  in- 
dustry involves  the  negation  of  common  own- 
ership in  the  same.  Accordingly,  Dr.  Mc- 
Glynn's  theory  of  ownership  is  embodied  in 
these  three  assertions:  (1.)  the  ownership 
in  land  is  common,  not  private;  (2.)  there  is, 
however,  private  possession,  without  owner- 
ship, of  land;  (3.)  there  is  private  ownership 
in  the  products  of  labor. 

After  these  explanations  the  reader  will 
find  no  difficulty  in  grasping  the  precise  and 
entire  meaning  of  Dr.  McGlynn's  statement. 
We  repeat  the  second  sentence  already 
quoted : 

*'God  has  granted  those  natural  bounties, 
that  is  to  say,  the  earth,  to  mankind  in  gen- 
eral, so  that  no  part  of  it  has  been  assigned 
to  any  one  in  particular,  and  so  that  the 
limits  of  private  possession  have  been  left 
to  be  fixed  by  man's  own  industry  and  the 
laws  of  individual  peoples. 

"But  it  is  a  necessary  part  of  the  liberty 
and  dignity  of  man  that  man  should  own  him- 
self— always,  of  course,  with  perfect  subju- 


AND  HENRY  GEORGE  121 

gation  to  the  moral  law.  Therefore,  beside 
the  common  right  to  natural  bounties,  there 
must  be  by  the  law  of  nature  private  property 
and  dominion  in  the  fruits  of  industry  or 
in  what  is  produced  by  labor  out  of  those 
natural  bounties  to  which  the  individual  may 
have  legitimate  access,  that  is,  so  far  as  he 
does  not  infringe  the  equal  right  of  others 
or  the  common  rights. 

''It  is  a  chief  function  of  civil  govern- 
ment to  maintain  equally  sacred  these  two 
natural  rights. 

''It  is  lawful  and  it  is  for  the  best  interest 
of  the  individual  and  of  the  community,  and 
necessary  for  civilization  that  there  should  be 
a  division  as  to  the  use  and  an  undisturbed, 
permanent,  exclusive  private  possession  of 
portions  of  the  natural  bounties,  or  of  the 
land;  in  fact,  such  exclusive  possession  is 
necessary  to  the  ownership,  use,  and  enjoy- 
ment by  the  individual  of  the  fruits  and  prod- 
ucts of  his  industry. 

"But  the  organized  community,  through 
civil  government,  must  always  maintain  the 
dominion  over  those  natural  bounties,  as  dis- 
tinct from  the  products  of  private  industry 
and  from  that  private  possession  of  the  land 
which  is  necessary  for  their  enjoyment.  The 
maintenance  of  this  dominion  over  the  nat- 


122  DR.  McGLYNN 

ural  bounties  is  a  primary  function  and  duty 
of  the  organized/ community,  in  order  to  main- 
tain the  equal  right  of  all  men  to  labor  for 
their  living  and  for  the  pursuit  of  happiness, 
and  therefore  their  equal  right  of  access  di- 
rectly or  indirectly  to  natural  bounties." 

Let  us  pause  for  a  moment.  Dr.  McGlynn 
never  tires  of  repeating  the  three  natural 
rights  which  constitute  his  and  Mr.  George's 
theory  of  ownership,  viz.,  common  ownership 
in  land,  private  possession,  as  distinct  from 
ownership,  of  land,  and  private  ownership 
in  the  fruits  of  labor. 

Leo  XIIL  rejects  common  landownership 
and  aflSrms  private  ownership  in  land  no  less 
than  ownership  in  the  fruits  of  labor.  It  is 
his  express  purpose  in  the  first  part  of  the 
*'Rerum  Novarum"  to  maintain  and  defend 
the  existence  of  private  ownership,  especially 
in  land,  by  natural  right.  He  always  speaks 
of  the  same  thing,  real  property,  true  owner- 
ship, which  he  designates  in  most  varied  and 
sometimes  striking  terms,  such  as  ''rerum 
dominium  vel  moventium  vel  solidarum" — 
*'possidere  res  privatim  ut  suas" — ''bona 
stabili  perpetuoque  jure  possidenda" — *'ter- 
rae  dominatus" — '*jus  dominii  personis  sin- 
gularibus  natura  tributum." 

As  regards  the  Latin  ''possessiones"  in 


AND  HENRY  GEORGE  123 

particular,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  throughout 
the  Encyclical  and  in  Latin  authors  generally 
this  term  means  real  property,  especially  / 
landed  property  or  real  estate.  It  is  entirely 
different  from  the  term  ''possession,"  as  used 
by  Henry  George  and  Dr.  McGlynn,  in  direct 
opposition  to  real  property  or  ownership. 
Hence,  if  Dr.  McGlynn,  on  the  one  hand,  ad- 
mits ''private  possession  of  the  land"  and 
speaks  of  "the  limits  of  [suchl  private  pos- 
session left  to  be  fixed  by  man's  own  indus- 
try and  the  laws  of  individual  peoples ' ' ;  and 
if  Leo  XIIL,  on  the  other,  defends  the  law- 
fulness of  "private  (landed)  possessions" 
and  speaks  of  "the  actual  distribution  of 
[such]  private  possessions  left  to  men's  own 
industry  and  to  the  laws  of  peoples,"  the 
meaning  of  the  Doctor,  as  we  said  above,  is 
diametrically  opposed  to  that  of  the  Pope. 
By  that  phrase  Dr.  McGlynn  denies  private 
ownership  in  land.  By  the  same  phrase  Leo 
XIII.  affirms  it.  He  only  repeats  what  he  had 
more  than  once  stated  before  in  most  explicit 
terms,  such  as  these:  " Consequitur,  ut  in 
homine  esse  non  modo  terrenorum  fructuum, 
sed  ipsius  terrae  dominatum  oporteat. — 
Hence  it  must  be  possible  for  man  to  acquire 
as  property  not  only  the  fruits  of  the  earth, 
but  the  very  soil  itself." 


/ 


y 


124  DR.  McGLYNN 

Moreover,  Dr.  McGlynn  maintams  that 
God  granted  the  earth  as  common  property 
to  mankind  at  large,  and  adds  that  *  *  the  main- 
tenance of  this  dominion  over  the  natural 
bounties,  as  distinct  from  the  products  of 
private  industry  and  from  the  (necessary) 
private  possession  of  the  land,  is  a  primary 
function  and  duty  of  the  organized  commu- 
nity. ' '  Leo  XIII.  rejects  common  landowner- 
ship.  This  follows,  first,  from  the  fact  that 
he  teaches  the  justice  and  necessity  of  private 
landownership,  the  latter  being  incompatible 
with  common  landownership.  Besides,  he 
declares  it  directly  by  a  clause  which  Dr. 
McGlynn  omitted  in  his  reproduction  of  the 
papal  text. 

These  are  the  words  of  the  Pope  (italics 
ours):  ''Quod  vero  terram  Deus  universo 
generi  hominum  utendam,  fruendara  dederit, 
id  quidem  non  potest  ullo  pacto  privatis 
possessionibus  obesse.  Deus  enim  generi 
hominum  donavisse  terram  in  commune 
dicitur,  non  quod  ejus  promiscuum  apud 
omnes  dominatum  voluerit,  sed  quia  partem 
nullam  cuique  assignavit  possidendam,  indus- 
triae  hominum  institutisque  populorum  per- 
missa  privatarum  possessionum  descrip- 
tione. ' ' 

This  is  the  literal  rendering  of  the  text: 


AND  HENRY  GEORGE  125 

''The  fact,  furthermore,  that  God  has  given 
the  earth  for  the  use  and  enjoyment  of  the 
whole  human  race,  does  not  in  the  least  pre- 
vent the  lawfulness  of  private  possessions. 
For  if  it  is  said  that  God  gave  the  earth  to 
mankind  in  common,  this  is  not  to  be  under- 
stood as  if  He  wished  the  common  ownership 
of  the  earth  vested  in  all  men,  but  because  He 
did  not  assign  to  any  one  the  possession  of 
any  particular  portion  of  the  earth,  leaving 
the  actual  distribution  of  private  possessions 
to  men's  industry  and  to  the  laws  of  peo- 
ples."    (Italics  ours.) 

This  is  Dr.  McGlynn's  *' version"  of  the 
second  sentence  of  the  passage:  **God  has 
granted  those  natural  bounties,  that  is  to  say, 
the  earth,  to  mankind  in  general,  so  that  no 
part  of  it  has  been  assigned  to  any  one  in 
particular,  and  so  that  the  limits  of  private 
possession  have  been  left  to  be  fixed  by  man's 
own  industry  and  the  laws  of  individual  peo- 
ples." 

Here  the  essential  and  decisive  clause  of 
the  Latin  text,  marked  by  us  with  italics,  is 
altogether  omitted ;  besides,  the  combined  ad- 
versative and  causal  conjunctions  *^sed 
quia"  are  replaced  by  a  simple  consecutive 
**so  that";  moreover,  the  Latin  ablative  ab- 
solute, which  here  is  equivalent  to  an  absolute 


126  DR.  McGLYNN 

sentence,  is  likewise  changed  into  a  simple 
consecutive  clause  and  added  to  the  preceding 
one,  **and  so  that";  finally,  the  term  "priva- 
tarum  possessionum,"  which  in  the  Encycli- 
cal means  private  property  in  land,  is  ren- 
dered by  ''private  possession"  in  the  Georg- 
ian sense,  excluding  the  right  of  property  or 
ownership.  By  these  subterfuges  Dr.  Mc- 
Glynn  succeeded  in  manipulating  what  re- 
mained of  the  Pope's  weighty  utterance  so 
as  to  make  it  convey  a  meaning  directly  op- 
posed to  that  which  it  has  in  the  Encyclical. 
The  Pope  denies  "the  common  ownership  of 
the  earth  vested  in  all  men";  Dr.  McGlynn 
affirms  such  common  ownership  and  dominion 
of  the  earth.  The  Pope  affirms  real  private 
property  in  land  to  be  in  harmony  with  the 
general  destination  of  the  earth  for  the  ben- 
efit of  the  entire  human  race;  Dr.  McGlynn 
allows  the  individual  nothing  but  the  mere 
holding  and  use  of  land,  without  "private 
property  and  dominion, ' '  which  he  restricts  to 
"the  fruits  of  industry  or  what  is  produced 
by  labor  out  of  those  natural  bounties  to 
which  the  individual  may  have  legitimate 
access. '  * 

So  far  we  have  examined  the  first  part  of 
Dr.  McGlynn 's  statement,  in  which  he  briefly 
expounds  his  theory  of  ownership.    It  is  the 


AND  HENRY  GEORGE  127 

Henry  George  doctrine :  the  denial  of  private 
and  the  assertion  of  common  ownership  in 
land.  We  now  come  to  the  second  part  of 
his  statement.  It  contains  the  application  of 
this  theory  of  ownership,  and  treats  of  the 
land  rent  and  the  Single  Tax.  Here,  too, 
the  Doctor  only  repeats  the  ideas  and  tenets 
of  Mr.  George;  some  passages  are  taken  al- 
most verbatim  from  the  Open  Letter  to  Leo 
XIII.  Bearing  in  mind  what  we  have  said 
in  our  chapter  on  the  Single  Tax  considered 
as  a  system  of  taxation,  the  reader  will  find 
it  easy  to  follow  Dr.  McGlynn's  exposition 
and  to  perceive  the  falsity  of  the  whole  sys- 
tem. 

**The  assertion  of  this  dominion  [common 
landowner  ship]  by  civil  government  is  espe- 
cially necessary  because,  with  the  very  be- 
ginning of  civil  government  and  with  the 
growth  of  civilization,  there  comes  to  the 
natural  bounties,  or  the  land,  a  peculiar  and 
an  increasing  value  distinct  from  and  irre- 
spective of  the  products  of  private  industry 
existing  therein.  This  value  is  not  produced 
by  the  industry  of  the  private  possessor  or 
proprietor  [i.  e.,  the  so-called  *  proprietor,' 
for  the  *  possessor'  of  land,  according  to  the 
system,  is  but  a  tenant  of  the  State  or  com- 
munity], but  is  produced  by  the  existence  of 


128  DR.  McGLYNN 

the  community  and  grows  with  the  growth 
and  civilization  of  the  community.  It  is, 
therefore,  called  the  unearned  increment. 
It  is  this  unearned  increment  that  in  cities 
gives  to  land  without  any  improvements  so 
great  a  value.  This  value  represents  and 
measures  the  advantages  and  opportunities 
produced  by  the  community;  and  men,  when 
not  permitted  to  acquire  the  absolute  domin- 
ion [i.  e.,  ownership,  as  commonly  under- 
stood] over  such  lands,  will  willingly  [?] 
pay  the  value  of  this  unearned  increment  in 
the  form  of  rents ;  just  as  men,  when  not  per- 
mitted to  own  other  men  [!],  will  willingly 
pay  wages  for  desired  services. 

*  *  No  sooner  does  the  organized  community, 
or  State,  arise  than  it  needs  revenues.  This 
need  for  revenues  is  small  at  first  while  pop- 
ulation is  sparse,  industry  rude,  and  the  func- 
tions of  the  State  few  and  simple;  but  with 
growth  of  population  and  advance  of  civiliza- 
tion the  functions  of  the  State  increase,  and 
larger  revenues  are  needed.  God  is  the  au- 
thor of  society,  and  has  pre-ordained  civili- 
zation. 

**The  increasing  need  for  public  revenues 
with  social  advance,  being  a  natural  God- 
ordained  need,  there  must  be  a  right  way  of 
raising  them — some  way  that  we  can  truly 


AND  HENRY  GEORGE  129 

say  is  tlie  way  intended  by  God.  It  is  clear 
that  this  right  way  of  raising  public  revenues 
must  accord  with  the  moral  law  or  the  law  of 
justice.  It  must  not  conflict  with  individual 
rights,  it  must  find  its  means  in  common 
rights  and  common  duties.  By  a  beautiful 
providence,  that  may  be  truly  called  divine, 
since  it  is  founded  upon  the  nature  of  things 
and  the  nature  of  man  of  which  God  is  the 
creator,  a  fund  constantly  increasing  with  the 
capacities  and  needs  of  society,  is  produced 
by  the  very  growth  of  society  itself,  namely, 
the  rental  value  of  the  natural  bounties  of 
which  society  retains  dominion.  The  justice 
and  the  duty  of  appropriating  this  fund  to 
public  uses  is  apparent  in  that  it  takes  noth- 
ing from  the  private  property  of  individuals 
except  what  they  will  pay  willingly  as  an 
equivalent  for  a  value  produced  by  the  com- 
munity and  which  they  are  permitted  to  en- 
joy. The  fund  thus  created  is  clearly  by  the 
law  of  justice  a  public  fund,  not  merely  be- 
cause the  value  is  a  growth  that  comes  to  the 
natural  bounties  which  God  gave  to  the  com- 
munity in  the  beginning,  but  also,  and  much 
more,  because  it  is  a  value  produced  by  the 
community  itself,  so  that  this  rental  value 
belongs  to  the  community  by  that  best  of  ti- 
tles, namely,  producing,  making  or  creating. 


130  DR.  McGLYNN 

"To  permit  any  portion  of  this  public 
property  to  go  into  private  pockets,  without 
a  perfect  equivalent  being  paid  into  the  pub- 
lic treasury,  would  be  an  injustice  to  the  com- 
munity. Therefore  the  whole  rental  fund 
should  be  appropriated  to  common  or  public 
uses." 

This  exposition  of  Dr.  McGlynn  sounds 
quite  plausible.  Nevertheless,  besides  some 
elementary  truths,  it  contains  grave  errors. 
It  is  true  that  God  is  the  author  of  society 
and  that  civilization  is  willed  by  Him.  It  is 
true  that  the  State  needs  revenues  to  carry 
on  its  functions,  and  that  there  must  be  some 
way  of  raising  these  revenues  in  harmony 
with  the  moral  order.  It  is  also  true  that  in 
society,  or  a  civilized  community,  land  has  a 
value  which  it  otherwise  would  not  have. 

But  it  is  a  grave  error  to  maintain  that  the 
revenues  necessary  for  the  proper  govern- 
ment of  a  community  must  not  be  paid  by 
the  members  of  that  community  out  of  their 
own  pockets ;  or,  rather,  it  is  an  absurdity  to 
represent  this  mode  of  raising  revenues  as 
"conflicting  with  individual  rights"  and  as 
an  "infringement  of  the  right  of  property." 
For  what  purpose  has  man  received  from  the 
Creator  the  right  of  acquiring  private  prop- 
erty and  for  what  purpose  can  and  does  he 


AND  HENRY  aEOEGE  131 

own  what  he  has  lawfully  acquired?  The 
immediate  purpose  is  to  have  wherewith  he 
may  satisfy  his  personal  wants  and  those  of 
his  family,  as  well  as  fulfill  his  various  du- 
ties of  justice  or  charity  towards  the  com- 
munity to  which  he  belongs.  When  Dr.  Mc- 
Glynn  was  pastor  at  St.  Stephen's,  New  York, 
the  collection  plate  was  on  certain  occasions 
passed  round  in  the  church.  Now  wherefrom 
did  the  pastor  expect  his  parishioners  to 
draw  the  contributions  he  hoped  they  would 
drop  into  the  plate,  if  not  from  their  own 
private  resources  ?  When  they  put  their  dol- 
lars into  the  plate,  they  made  precisely  that 
use  of  them  for  which  they  had  got  them  from 
the  Almighty. 

It  is,  moreover,  an  error  to  maintain  that 
the  ** peculiar  and  increasing  value"  which 
the  land  has  in  a  community,  belongs  to  the 
State  or  community,  and  it  is  an  illusion  to 
speak  of  a  common,  constantly  increasing 
fund  which  *'a  beautiful  providence"  has 
provided  for  the  raising  of  the  necessary 
public  revenues. 

What  is  the  value  of  land  in  a  community 
irrespective  of  improvements?  It  is  "a 
growth,"  answers  Dr.  McGlynn,  "that  comes 
to  the  natural  bounties,"  i.  e.,  to  the  land. 
**The  value  of  land,"  Henry  George  says,  *4s 


132  DR.  McGLYNN 

the  value  that  attaches  to  land  by  reason  of 
increasing  population  and  social  progress. 
This  is  a  value  that  always  goes  to  the  owner 
as  owner."  Hence  it  belongs  not  to  the 
State,  but  to  the  individual  who  is  the  owner 
of  the  respective  land.  The  ''dominion  of 
the  natural  bounties,  i.  e.,  the  earth,"  was 
never  given  by  God  to  mankind  at  large  nor 
the  ownership  of  a  particular  country  to  the 
inhabitants  of  that  country  as  a  body. 

"What  is  the  land  value  1  It  is  ' '  a  product, 
a  creation  of  the  community,"  answers  Dr. 
DVIcGlynn  with  Mr.  George,  and  therefore  it 
belongs  to  the  community  by  the  best  of  all 
titles.  This  argument  is  a  miserable  sophism, 
mere  quibbling  upon  the  words  ''production" 
and  "community"  and,  moreover,  considers 
only  one  kind  of  wealth  to  the  exclusion  of 
all  other  kinds,  to  which  it  might  be  applied 
as  well. 

The  land  value  or  exchange  value  of  land 
arises  indeed  ' '  by  reason  of  increasing  popu- 
lation and  social  progress."  It  "represents 
and  measures  the  advantages  and  opportuni- 
ties" which  exist  in  the  community.  In 
primitive  conditions,  Henry  George  inforais 
us,  when  the  population  of  a  country  is  sparse 
and  much  land  unoccupied,  no  value  attaches 
to  land  itself. 


AND  HENRY  GEORGE  133 

As  population  increases  and  industry  be- 
comes more  varied  and  elaborate,  value  be- 
gins to  attach  to  land  and  rises  higher  and 
higher,  especially  where  population  centers 
as  in  large  cities.  "Consider  the  enormous 
value  of  land  in  such  cities  as  compared  with 
the  value  of  land  in  sparsely  settled  parts 
of  the  same  countries.  To  what  is  this 
due?  Is  it  not  due  to  the  density  and  ac- 
tivity of  the  populations  of  those  cities — to 
the  very  causes  that  require  great  public  ex- 
penditure for  streets,  drains,  public  build- 
ings, and  all  the  many  things  needed  for 
the  health,  convenience  and  safety  of  such 
great  cities?  See  how  with  the  growth  of 
such  cities  the  one  thing  that  steadily  in- 
creases in  value  is  land;  how  the  opening 
of  roads,  the  building  of  railways,  the  mak- 
ing of  any  public  improvement,  adds  to 
the  value  of  land."  {Open  Letter.) 

The  author  of  the  Open  Letter  and  his  fol- 
lower, Dr.  McGlynn,  seem  to  imagine  that 
every  action  that  is  done,  and  every  work 
that  is  accomplished  in  a  certain  community 
or  State  is  also  an  action  and  a  work  of  that 
community  or  State.  Has  the  State  of  New 
York  built  all  the  villages,  towns,  and  cities 
within  its  borders,  with  all  their  houses,  their 
roads,  their  railways,  all  their  improvements 


134  DR.  McGLYNN 

and  conveniences,  in  a  word  with  all  those 
numberless  factors  which  in  one  way  or 
other  have  contributed  to  the  rising  of  the 
land  value  in  the  various  parts  of  the  State  of 
New  York?  Some  buildings,  some  works, 
some  means  of  material  prosperity,  etc.,  are 
due  to  public  or  State  activity  or  to  public 
funds ;  but  by  far  the  greatest  share  in ' '  creat- 
ing" the  land  values  both  in  city  and  country 
within  the  limits  of  the  State  is  undoubtedly 
to  be  assigned  to  private  activity  and  to  pri- 
vate enterprise  of  individuals  or  private  cor- 
13orations.  Generally  speaking  we  may  safely 
maintain  that  only  a  very  small  proportion  of 
the  land  value  in  a  country  is  the  "product** 
of  the  respective  community  or  State. 

The  argument  quibbles  upon  the  term  "pro- 
ducing, making,  creating.'*  Making  or  pro- 
ducing, in  the  proper  sense,  when  applied  to 
material  objects  or  things,  means  bringing 
them  into  existence  by  causing  in  a  given 
material — for  man  can  make  naught  out 
of  nothing — a  physical  change  to  arise,  in 
consequence  of  which  the  object  now  is 
what  it  was  not  before,  say  a  chair,  a 
statue,  cultivated  soil,  roast  beef.  Such, 
and  only  such,  "producing"  or  "labor" 
is  acknowledged  by  all  to  be  a  legitimate 
title  to  the  direct  and  proximate  result,  i.  e., 


AND  HENRY  GEORGE  135 

the  ''product  of  one's  labor,"  provided  one 
works  on  material  that  belongs  to  him ;  if  one 
exerts  his  physical  powers  on  material  not 
his  own,  he  can  only  claim  a  fair  compensa- 
tion for  the  labor  expended.  In  both  cases 
the  ''particular  product  of  labor,"  with  its 
entire  usefulness  or  "use  value,"  belongs  to 
the  owner  of  the  material.  Should  the  owner 
grant  or  let  the  use  of  his  property  to  some 
one  else,  he  has  the  right  to  demand  com- 
pensation for  such  use.  But  in  this  case, 
if  the  use  of  the  object  should  afford  to  the 
user  an  opportunity  of  making  some  gain, 
e.  g.,  by  trading,  this  gain,  whether  great  or 
small,  would  belong  entirely  to  the  user. 
Now  this  is  precisely  the  manner  in  which 
roads,  ships,  railways,  and  all  other  advan- 
tageous arrangements  or  conditions,  private 
as  well  as  public,  in  a  country  or  in  several 
countries  adjoining  one  another,  cooperate  to- 
wards increasing  the  exchange  value  of  land 
in  the  various  parts  of  the  respective  coun- 
try ;  viz.,  by  affording  opportunities  for  gain 
or  comforts.  The  physical  improvements 
and  works  themselves  are  the  products  of 
labor,  but  not  their  usefulness  as  such,  much 
less  the  land  values  which  are  but  a  further 
consequence  of  such  improvements.  Hence 
the  "rental  value"  of  the  land  does  not  be- 


136  DR.  McGLYNN 

long  to  the  community  or  State  ''by  that  best 
of  titles,  namely,  producing,  making  or  creat- 
ing." 

From  the  foregoing  explanation  the  reader 
will  easily  understand  that  the  argument  of 
Henry  George  and  Dr.  McGlynn,  if  it  proved 
anything  with  regard  to  landed  property, 
would  likewise  hold  as  to  all  other  kinds  of 
property.  The  value  of  all  material  goods 
which  are  exchangeable,  is  affected,  in  one 
way  or  other,  by  those  material  conditions 
and  features  which  distinguish  a  civilized  and 
progressive  country.  Not  only  landowners, 
but  also  common  laborers,  business  and  pro- 
fessional men,  in  short,  all  classes  of  people 
are  benefited  by  the  various  means  of  com- 
munication and  social  improvement.  Hence 
their  gains  would  likewise,  at  least  in  part, 
belong  to  the  State.  The  argument  evidently 
proves  too  much  and  consequently  proves 
nothing. 

To  conclude,  therefore,  the  State  or  the 
community  can  not  claim  the  land  rent  by  any 
just  title  whatsoever;  it  being  neither  the 
owner  of  all  the  land  in  a  country  nor  the 
"producer"  of  the  land  value.  The  confisca- 
tion of  the  land  rent  by  the  State,  as  proposed 
by  Mr.  George  and  Dr.  McGlynn,  would  there- 


AND  HENRY  GEORGE  137 

fore  be  sheer  robbery,  a  downright  infringe- 
ment of  the  citizens'  right  of  property. 

We  abstain  from  giving  the  rest  of  Dr.  Mc- 
Glynn's  statement,  since  nothing  new  could 
be  learned  from  further  quotations.  Those 
who  wish  to  read  the  Doctor's  one-sided  and 
superficial  description  of  the  working  of  the 
Single  Tax  system,  together  with  his  invec- 
tives against  private  landownership,  which 
is  represented  as  giving  ''the  power  to  im- 
poverish and  practically  to  reduce  to  a  spe- 
cies of  slavery  the  masses  of  men,"  are  re- 
ferred to  the  columns  of  the  New  York  Free- 
man's Journal,  Feb.  6th,  1904;  or,  if  they 
prefer,  they  may  read  Progress  and  Poverty 
or  the  Open  Letter  of  Henry  George,  where 
they  will  find  the  same  thoughts,  not  infre- 
quently expressed  in  the  same  words. 


vm. 

THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  DR.  McGLYNN's  RESTORATION 

To  a  communication  to  the  press,  part  of 
which  we  quoted  in  the  preceding  chapter,  Dr. 
McGljTin  added  these  words-  ''I  am  par- 
ticularly happy  to  be  able  to  say  that  I  found 
more  than  abundant  consolation  for  some 
tribulations  which  I  have  suffered  because  of 
Mr.  George's  doctrines  in  the  fact  that  these 
tribulations  brought  out  the  explicit  declara- 
tion from  ecclesiastical  authority  that  there 
was  nothing  in  these  doctrines  contrary  to 
the  teachings  of  the  Catholic  religion." 

A  communication  from  Kondout,  N.  Y., 
Jan.  16th,  1893,  runs  as  follows:  ''When 
asked  whether  the  action  of  Msgr.  Satolli  in 
reinstating  Dr.  McGlynn  could  be  taken  to 
mean  that  the  Church  itself  advocated  such 
views  as  Henry  George  and  Dr.  McGlynn 
held,  Dr.  Burtsell  said:  .  .  .  *Dr.  Mc- 
Glynn's  restoration  through  the  mediation  of 
Msgr.  Satolli  is  a  simple  declaration  from  the 
Holy  See  that  his  views  of  landownership 
138 


DE.  McGLYNN'S  RESTORATION      139 

are  permitted  to  be  advocated  by  him,  not 
being  contrary  to  the  laws  of  the  Church. 
This,  however,  does  not  imply  the  conclusion 
that  the  Church  itself  advocates,  or  will  ad- 
vocate, such  ideas  in  regard  to  landowner- 
ship  and  the  theory  of  a  single  tax,  for  she 
has  never  yet  come  to  any  such  conclusion. 
There  is  a  great  difference  between  deciding 
a  thing  to  be  not  contrary  to  the  Church's 
teachings,  and  the  Church's  teaching  such  be- 
liefs herself.  Dr.  McGlynn's  theories  are 
now  'free  doctrine.'  People  may  adopt  or 
reject  his  opinions  as  they  see  fit,  without  in- 
curring the  displeasure  or  the  rebuke  of  the 
Church  through  her  officers. '  ' ' 

This  communication  is  reprinted  in  the 
New  York  Freeman's  Journal  of  Feb.  6th, 
1904.  In  the  same  issue  we  read  at  the  end 
of  an  editorial  note:  *'The  conclusion  is  that 
the  Church  has  neither  confirmed  them  [the 
principles  of  Henry  George  and  Dr.  Mc- 
Glynn]  as  true  nor  condemned  them  as  false. 
This  is  the  status  of  the  Georgian  Land  The- 
ory at  present.  It  is  an  open  question;  the 
Catholic  is  free  to  advocate  or  condemn  it, 
but  he  is  not  free  to  adduce  the  authority  of 
the  Church  as  an  argument  against  it,  has  no 
grounds  to  say  that  the  Church  condemned 
it." 


140     DR.  McGLYNN'S  RESTORATION 

It  is  the  purpose  of  this  chapter  to  show 
that  the  view  of  Dr.  McGlynn's  restoration 
expressed  in  the  quotations  just  given,  is  un- 
tenable. What  judgment  on  Dr.  McGlynn's 
teaching  did  ' '  ecclesiastical  authority, "  ' '  the 
Holy  See, "  or  ' '  the  Church, ' '  give  on  the  oc- 
casion of  his  reinstatement  by  the  Apostolic 
Delegate,  December  23rd,  1892?  Let  us  re- 
view the  facts  connected  with  that  event,  as 
they  were  published  at  the  time  through  the 
press. 

A  despatch  from  Washington,  dated  Jan. 
14th,  1893,  contained  the  following  passage: 

"Msgr.  Satolli  authorizes  the  publication 
of  the  following  statement  in  regard  to  the 
Pope 's  action  in  the  case  of  Dr.  McGlynn : — 
*  On  the  very  day  of  the  reconciliation  of  Dr. 
McGlynn  with  the  Church  public  notice  was 
given  of  it  with  the  statement  that  Msgr. 
Satolli  had  absolved  from  censure  and  recon- 
ciled Dr.  McGlynn  by  special  power  for  the 
purpose,  requested  from  and  granted  by  the 
Holy  Father,  and  moreover,  that  the  absolu- 
tion had  been  given  because  Dr.  McGlynn  had 
willingly  accepted  the  conditions  laid  down 
by  the  Holy  Father  as  necessary  and  suffi- 
cient.' " 

Further  on  the  conditions  of  the  reconcilia- 
tion were  stated  thus :    * '  The  conditions  were 


DR.  McGLYNN'S  RESTORATION      141 

in  this  form :  Dr.  McGlynn  had  presented  a 
brief  statement  of  his  opinions  on  moral-eco- 
nomic matters,  and  it  was  judged  not  con- 
trary to  the  doctrine  constantly  taught  by 
the  Church  and  as  recently  confirmed  by  the 
Holy  Father  in  the  Encyclical  'Rerum  Nova- 
rum.  '  Also  it  is  hereby  publicly  made  known 
that  Dr.  McGlynn,  besides  professing  his  ad- 
herence to  all  the  doctrines  and  teachings  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  has  expressed  his  re- 
gret (saying  that  he  would  be  the  first  to  re- 
gret it)  for  any  word  or  act  of  his  that  may 
have  seemed  lacking  in  the  respect  due  to 
ecclesiastical  authority,  and  he  thereby  in- 
tends to  repair,  as  far  as  he  can,  any  offense 
which  may  have  been  given  to  Catholics. 
Finally,  Dr.  McGlynn  has  of  his  own  free  will 
declared  and  promised  that,  within  the  limits 
of  a  not  long  period  of  time,  he  will  go  to 
Rome  in  the  spirit  and  intention  which  are 
becoming  to  a  good  Catholic  and  a  priest." 
Note  appended :  * '  Dr.  McGlynn  says  that  he 
knows  that  the  despatch  from  Washington 
containing  a  statement,  the  publication  of 
which  is  said  to  be  authorized  by  the  Apos- 
tolic Delegate,  is  genuine  and  authentic,  and 
that  he  will  make  the  statement  the  subject 
of  his  talk  at  Cooper  Union  to-night.  He 
will  make   an   additional  statement   of  his 


142     DR.  McGLYNN'S  RESTORATION 

own."  {New  York  Herald,  Jan.  15th,  1893.) 
At  the  meeting  which  was  held  at  Cooper 
Union  in  the  evening  of  Jan.  15th,  1893,  Dr. 
McGlynn  read  both  the  letter  addressed  by 
himself  to  the  Apostolic  Delegate  and  the 
above-mentioned  ' '  brief  statement  of  his  opin- 
ions on  moral-economic  matters. ' ' 

According  to  the  World,  Jan.  16th,  1893, 
Dr.  McGlynn  said : 

''Now  that,  as  is  made  clear  by  the  pub- 
lished statement  of  Archbishop  Satolli,  we 
are  relieved  from  the  restraint  of  certain 
considerations  of  prudence  and  delicacy,  I  am 
only  too  happy  to  publish  the  letter  which  I 
presented  to  the  Apostolic  Delegate,  and  his 
acceptance  of  which  was  immediately  followed 
by  the  declaration  of  the  removal  of  the  ec- 
clesiastical censures,  and  by  this  publication 
to  reaffirm  the  sentiments  which  it  contains. 
The  letter  is  as  follows:  'Monsignor:  I 
am  very  happy  to  learn  that  it  has  been 
judged  that  there  is  nothing  contrary  to  Cath- 
olic doctrine  in  the  doctrine  taught  by  me,  as 
it  was  explained  by  me  in  the  exposition  of 
the  same  which  I  sent  to  Your  Grace,  and  I  re- 
joice that  you  are  prepared  to  remove  the 
ecclesiastical  censures.  I  assure  you  that  I 
have  never  said,  and  I  would  never  say,  con- 
\/      sciously  a  word  contrary  to  the  teachings 


DB.  McGLYNN'S  RESTORATION      143 

of  the  Church  and  the  Apostolic  See,  to  which 
teachings,  and  notably  to  those  contained  in 
the  Encyclical  Rerum  Novarum,  I  give  and 
have  ever  given  a  full  adhesion,  and  if  what- 
soever word  may  have  ever  escaped  me  which 
might  seem  not  entirely  conformable  to  those 
teachings,  I  would  like  to  recall  it  or  to  in-  i'' 
terpret  it  in  a  sense  conformable  to  them.  I 
have  not  consciously  failed  in  the  respect  due 
to  the  authority  of  the  Holy  See ;  but  if  what- 
soever word  may  have  ever  escaped  me  not 
conformable  to  the  respect  due  to  it,  I  should 
be  the  first  to  regret  it  and  to  recall  it.  As 
to  the  journey  to  Rome,  I  will  make  it  within 
three  or  four  months  if  the  matter  be  not 
otherwise  determined  by  the  Holy  Father. 
I  am  Your  Grace's  very  obedient  servant, 
Edward  iMcGlynn.'  " 

What  do  we  learn  from  these  documents 
concerning  the  question  we  propose  to  an- 
swer? 

We  learn  the  following  facts : 

1.  Msgr.  Satolli  reconciled  Dr.  McGlynn  by 
special  power  granted  by  the  Holy  Father. 

2.  Dr.  McGlynn  received  absolution  from 
ecclesiastical  censures  because  he  accepted  the 
conditions  laid  down  for  him  by  the  Holy 
Father  as  necessary  and  suflScient;  viz.: 

3.  Dr.  McGlynn  presented  a  statement  of 


144     DR.  McGLYNN'S  RESTORATION 

his  opinions  and  it  was  judged  not  contrary 
/      to  the  teaching  of  the  Church  and  of  the  En- 
cyclical ' '  Rerum  Novarum. ' ' 

4.  Dr.  McGlynn  professed  his  adherence  to 
all  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  and  expressed 
his  regret  for  any  word  or  act  of  his  that 
might  have  seemed  lacking  in  the  respect  due 
to  ecclesiastical  authority. 

5.  Dr.  McGlynn  promised  to  go  to  Rome 
in  due  time  and  in  the  proper  spirit. 

From  his  statement  made  at  the  meeting 
of  Jan.  15th,  1893,  also  quoted  above,  we 
learn  the  following  facts: 

1.  Dr.  McGlynn  had  presented  a  letter  to 
the  Apostolic  Delegate,  the  acceptance  of 
which  was  immediately  followed  by  a  dec- 
laration of  the  removal  of  the  ecclesiastical 
censures. 

2.  By  the  publication  of  this  letter  at  the 
meeting,  the  Doctor  wished  to  reaffirm  the 
sentiments  contained  therein. 

3.  He  had  learned  with  satisfaction  that  it 
had  been  judged  that  there  was  nothing  con- 
trary to  Catholic  teaching  in  his  doctrine,  as 
explained  in  his  exposition  of  the  same. 

4.  He  assured  the  Apostolic  Delegate  that 
he  had  never  consciously  said  a  word  con- 
trary to  the  Church's  teaching,  nor  conscious- 
ly failed  in  the  respect  due  to  the  Holy  See. 


DR.  McGLYNN'S  RESTORATION     145 

5.  The  Doctor  expressed  his  full  adhesion 
to  the  teachings  of  the  Church  and  notably 
to  those  contained  in  the  Encyclical  '^Rerum 
No  varum. ' ' 

6.  As  to  the  journey  to  Rome  he  was  will- 
ing to  make  it  within  three  or  four  months. 

These  are  all  the  facts  contained  in  the 
two  documents.  Where  is  there  a  decla- 
ration of  ''ecclesiastical  authority,"  from 
''the  Holy  See,"  from  "the  Church"? 

The  Washington  despatch  authorized  by 
Msgr.  Satolli  says  that  "the  brief  statement 
of  the  Doctor's  opinions  on  moral-economic 
matters  was  judged  not  contrary  to  Catholic 
teaching."  Dr.  McGlynn  himself  writes  in 
his  letter  to  the  Apostolic  Delegate  simply: 
"I  am  very  happy  to  learn  that  it  has  been 
judged  that  there  is  nothing  contrary,"  etc. 
"It  was  judged," — ^"it  has  been  judged." — 
By  whom?  By  the  Apostolic  Delegate?  If  \/ 
this  had  been  the  case,  the  Washington  des- 
patch, or,  at  least.  Dr.  McGlynn  himself, 
would  have  mentioned  it.  The  expression, 
"it  was  or  has  been  judged,"  especially  when 
compared  with  the  phrase,  "Msgr.  Satolli 
had  absolved  from  censure  and  reconciled 
Dr.  McGlynn";  and  again,  "I  rejoice  that 
you  are  prepared  to  remove  the  ecclesi- 
astical censures,"  rather  indicates  that  the 

10 


146     DR.  McGLYNN'S  RESTORATION 

''judgment"  concerning  Dr.  McGlynn's  doc- 
trine did  not  proceed  from  the  Apostolic 
Delegate. 

Moreover,  it  would  have  been  impossible 
for  Msgr.  Satolli  to  examine  and  decide  the 
doctrinal  part  of  the  McGlynn  case  himself. 
He  had  but  recently  come  to  this  country 
and  was  not  yet  sufficiently  acquainted  with 
its  language  to  read  the  publications  of 
Henry  George  or  similar  works.  He  had 
not  followed  the  Henry  George  controversy, 
which  had  been  carried  on  in  this  country 
for  over  ten  years  and  which  had  excited 
the  minds  of  Henry  George's  followers  as 
well  as  of  his  opponents  in  a  degree  that 
can  only  be  compared  with  the  excitement 
caused  by  the  Catholic  school  controversy 
which  just  at  that  time  was  in  full  blaze. 
Besides,  the  Apostolic  Delegate  was  kept 
busy  with  many  other  intricate  and  annoy- 
ing affairs.  In  truth,  he  was  not  in  a  posi- 
tion to  judge  for  himself  of  the  doctrine  ad- 
vocated by  Dr.  McGlynn,  but  was  forced  to 
consign  this  task  to  others.     And  this  he  did. 

In  the  New  York  Freeman's  Journal, 
whose  reliability  in  this  matter  admits  of 
no  doubt,  we  read  (issue  of  Dec.  5th,  1903) : 

''On  the  arrival  of  Archbishop  Satolli  in 
this  country  as  the  Pope's  representative. 


DR.  McGLYNN'S  RESTORATION      147 

appeal  was  made  to  him  to  reverse  the  act 
of  excommunication  against  Dr.  McGlynn. 
He  suggested  that  Dr.  McGlynn  should  fully 
state  and  explain  his  doctrine  on  the  land 
question.  The  Doctor  presented  to  the  Able- 
gate a  direct  and  explicit  statement  of  his 
teaching,  just  as  he  had  been  teaching  it 
from  the  beginning.  His  presentation  of 
the  George  Jand  theory  was  submitted  to 
and  carefully  considered  by  a  committee  of 
the  professors  of  the  Catholic  University  at 
Washington,  who — with  the  Encyclical 
quoted  by  [our  correspondent]  before  them 
— declared  that  it  contained  nothing  contrary 
to  the  teachings  of  the  Catholic  Church. 
These  professors  were  Revs.  Thomas  Bou- 
quillon,  D.  D.  (Dean  of  the  Theological  Fac- 
ulty) ;  Thomas  0 'Gorman,  D.  D.  (now  Bishop 
of  Sioux  Falls,  S.  D.) ;  Thomas  J.  Shahan, 
D.  D.,  and  Charles  Grannan,  D.  D. 

''On  this  decision  Archbishop  Satolli,  in 
formal  words,  and  in  the  name  of  the  Pope, 
removed  the  ban  of  excommunication  from 
Dr.  McGlynn,  and  the  first  announcement  of 
the  Doctor's  reinstatement  was  made  by  the 
papal  representative  from  the  Catholic  Uni- 
versity at  Washington.  Previous  to  the  re- 
moval of  the  ban  Dr.  McGlynn  had  expressly 
stipulated  that  he  should  be  free  to  continue 


148     DE.  McGLYNN'S  RESTORATION 

to  expound  the  Single  Tax  as  long  as  he 
thought  proper." 

Again,  in  the  same  journal,  for  Jan.  23d, 
1904,  we  read: 

''When  [our  correspondent]  carries  his 
interpretation  so  far  as  to  say  the  Encyclical 
condemns  the  Single  Tax  doctrine,  he  comes 
in  collision  with  the  judgment  and  ofiBcial 
decision  of  those  learned  professors  to  whom 
a  statement  of  the  doctrine  was  submitted 
by  Msgr.  Satolli,  the  Pope's  representative. 
With  the  greatest  regard  for  [his]  ability 
and  learning,  we  are  constrained  to  prefer 
the  official  interpretation  of  those  university 
professors  which  the  Pope's  representative 
received  and  acted  upon,  and  on  the  basis  of 
which  he  restored  Dr.  McGlynn  to  his  ecclesi- 
astical status. 

''Msgr.  Satolli  requested  Dr.  McGlynn  to 
state  the  Single  Tax  doctrine  which  he  ad- 
vocated. He  complied,  and  his  statement 
was  submitted  by  Msgr.  Satolli  to  the  pro- 
fessors of  the  Catholic  University  at  Wash- 
ington. Their  decision  was  that  they  found 
nothing  in  the  statement  contrary  to  Catholic 
teaching.  As  they  included  the  Encyclical 
as  Catholic  teaching,  their  decision  was  that 
there  was  nothing  in  the  statement  of  Dr. 
McGlynn  contrary  to  that  papal  document. 


DR.  McGLYNN'S  RESTORATION      149 

This  was  accepted  as  final  by  the  Papal  Dele- 
gate, and  Dr.  McGlynn  was  restored  without 
any  retraction  or  repudiation  on  his  part 
of  the  doctrine  he  had  been  advocating, 
and  with  the  understanding  that  he  could 
continue  to  advocate  it.  On  the  evening  of 
the  day  on  which  he  said  his  first  Mass  after 
his  restoration,  he  gave  a  public  lecture  in 
which  he  advocated  it." 

Finally,  on  Feb.  6th,  1904,  the  Freeman's 
Journal  wrote  under  the  heading,  ''The 
Georgian  Land  Theory,"  as  follows: 

'*In  compliance  with  the  suggestion  [of 
a  correspondent],  we  give  elsewhere  in  this 
issue  the  two  statements  of  the  Georgian 
Land  Theory  as  understood  by  Dr.  McGlynn 
and  Dr.  Burtsell.  These  statements  were 
approved  by  Henry  George,  in  a  letter  to  the 
New  York  Sun,  as  a  correct  exposition  of  his 
land  theory.  They  were  submitted  to  Msgr. 
Satolli  and  by  him  referred  to  a  committee 
of  professors  of  the  Catholic  University  of 
Washington  and  declared  by  them  to  contain 
nothing  contrary  to  Catholic  teaching. 
After  this  decision  was  rendered  the  Papal 
Delegate  removed  the  excommunication  from 
Dr.  McGlynn  and  restored  his  faculties." 

The  Freeman's  Journal  adds:  ** These 
facts,  it  seems  to  us,  ought  definitely  to  close 


150     DE.  McGLYNN'S  RESTORATION 

the  question.  .  .  ."  Undoubtedly  they 
ought  to  close  it,  and  we  venture  to  maintain 
that  they  do  close  it.  For  they  make  it  evi- 
dent beyond  even  the  possibility  of  a  doubt, 
that  the  judgment  which  declared  the  land 
theory  advocated  by  Dr.  McGlynn  to  contain 
nothing  contrary  to  Catholic  teaching,  was 
not  a  "declaration  from  ecclesiastical  au- 
thority," but  the  opinion  of  the  four  pro- 
fessors who  had  been  called  upon  to  examine 
Dr.  McGlynn 's  statement.  These  learned 
professors  acted  merely  as  private  theologi- 
ans. Their  decision,  therefore,  carries  no 
more  authority  than  that  which  utterances  of 
scholars  generally  carry.  But  after  all,  did 
their  learning  keep  the  four  professors  from 
making  a  wrong  decision?  Alas!  it  did  not. 
Their  decision  is  so  manifestly  erroneous 
that  it  has  always  been  and  is  still  a  mystery 
how  they  could  arrive  at  it. 

We  have  demonstrated,  by  a  minute  and 
accurate  examination  of  the  tenets  of  Henry 
George  and  Dr.  McGlynn,  that  their  doc- 
trine is  substantially  the  same.  We  have 
demonstrated  that  their  whole  economic 
teaching  is  essentially  embodied  in  the  state- 
ment: there  is  no  private,  but  only  common 
ownership  in  land.    We  have,  finally,  demon- 


DR.  McGLYNN'S  RESTORATION     151 

strated   that   this   doctrine   openly   conflicts 
with  natural  reason,  with  the  explicit  teach- 
ing of  Leo  XIII.,  and  with  Holy  Scripture. 
The  opinion,  therefore,  of  the  professors  who 
pronounced     the     Henry     George-McGlynn 
Land   Theory   to   contain  nothing  contrary 
to  the  teaching  of  the  Church,  has  no  value    / 
whatever.    And  in  the  reinstatement  of  Dr. 
McGlynn,  as  well  as  in  the  events  connected 
with  it,  there  is  nothing  that  could  in  truth 
be  construed  as  a  doctrinal  decision  or  judg-     y 
ment  from  any  ecclesiastical  authority.    The 
action    of    the    Apostolic    Delegate    in    the 
McGlynn   case   was   of  merely   disciplinary    / 
character. 

Those  who  followed  the  events  occurring 
soon  after  the  arrival  of  Msgr.  Satolli  in 
this  country,  will  remember  what  a  surprise 
to  the  public  was  the  news  of  Dr.  McGlynn 's 
restoration,  on  December  23rd,  1892.  Cath- 
olic writers  and  lecturers  had  stigmatized 
Henry  George's  theory  of  landownership  as 
contrary  to  the  teachings  of  the  Church  and 
of  Holy  Writ.  Dr.  McGlynn,  who  had  made 
the  Georgian  tenets  his  own,  had  chiefly  on 
that  account  come  in  conflict  with  his  ecclesi- 
astical superiors.  Nevertheless  he  was  ab- 
solved from  censure  by  Msgr.  Satolli  with- 


152     DR.  McGLYNN'S  RESTORATION 

out  being  requested  to  retract  his  former 
teaching.  This  was  and  remained  for  many 
an  insoluble  riddle. 

Previous  to  the  removal  of  the  excommuni- 
cation, as  we  have  seen,  Dr.  McGlynn  pre- 
sented to  the  Apostolic  Delegate  an  * '  explicit 
statement  of  his  teaching,  just  as  he  had 
been  teaching  it  from  the  beginning."  This 
statement  was  examined  by  a  committee  of 
four  professors  of  the  Catholic  University 
of  America,  who  declared  ''that  it  contained 
nothing  contrary  to  the  teachings  of  the 
Catholic  Church."  Accordingly,  the  Apos- 
tolic Delegate  saw  no  reason  why  Dr.  Mc- 
Glynn should  be  asked  to  recant  his  former 
teaching;  on  the  contrary,  he  naturally 
rather  pitied  the  Doctor,  who  had  been  for 
so  many  years  to  all  appearances  wrongly 
supposed  to  hold  and  propagate  an  erroneous 
and  even  heretical  doctrine.  This  sufficiently 
explains  the  action  of  the  Pope's  representa- 
tive. 

However,  the  said  supposition  was  not 
wrong,  but  the  decision  of  the  advisory  com- 
mittee was  wrong,  and  it  was  only  because 
the  Apostolic  Delegate  had  been  misled  by 
that  decision,  that  the  restoration  of  Dr. 
McGlynn  took  place  under  such  easy  con- 


DR.  McGLYNN'S  RESTORATION      153 

ditions  and  without  any  recantation  of  his 
former  teaching. — 

The  New  International  Encyclopaedia 
gives  the  'following  summary  of  Dr.  Mc- 
Glynn's  career:  ''He  was  born  in  New 
York,  September  27th,  1837,  of  Irish  parents. 
He  was  educated  at  the  Propaganda  in  Rome, 
was  ordained  there,  and  in  1866  became 
pastor  of  Saint  Stephen's  Church  in  New 
York,  but  in  1886  was  removed  by  the  Arch- 
bishop, on  account  of  his  opposition  to 
parochial  schools,  and  especially  because  of 
his  persistent  advocacy  of  Henry  George's 
Single  Tax  theories,  which  were  declared  at 
variance  with  Roman  Catholic  teachings. 
He  was  soon  after  summoned  to  Rome  to 
give  an  account  of  himself,  but  he  refused 
to  go.  On  the  contrary,  he  boldly  advocated 
in  public  the  doctrine  'no  politics  from 
Rome.'  In  July,  1887,  he  was  excommuni- 
cated. In  December,  1892,  after  a  hearing 
before  the  Apostolic  Delegate,  Msgr.  Satolli, 
he  made  his  submission  and  was  restored  to 
his  priestly  functions.  He  was  in  charge 
of  a  parish  in  Newburgh,  N.  Y.,  until  his 
death,  Jan.  7th,  1900.  He  aided  in  founding 
the  Anti-Poverty  Society,  and  became  its 
president  (1887)." 


154      DR.  McGLYNN'S  RESTORATION 

Dr.  McGlynn's  absolution  from  ecclesias- 
tical censures  at  the  hands  of  the  Apostolic 
Delegate  was,  under  the  circumstances,  a 
great  humiliation  for  Archbishop  Corrigan; 
for  it  made  the  steps  which  had  been  taken 
against  the  Doctor  by  his  immediate  ecclesi- 
astical superior  appear  before  the  whole 
world  as  arbitrary  and  unjust.  Yet  the 
saintly  Archbishop  never  uttered  a  word  of 
protest,  but  preferred  to  be  silent,  after  the 
example  of  his  Divine  Master.^ 

1  The  generosity  of  Msgr.  Corrigan's  conduct  through- 
out "  the  McGlynn  case "  can  be  fully  appreciated  only 
by  those  who,  like  myself,  have  had  access  to  the  docu- 
ments left  behind  by  the  saintly  Archbishop.  Some  day, 
no  doubt,  these  documents,  authentic  copies  of  which  I 
had  the  privilege  of  examining  in  the  winter  of  1904-5, 
will  be  published,  and  then  only  will  the  McGlynn  case, 
in  all  its  details,  appear  to  the  public  in  its  true  light. — 
A.  P. 


IX. 

WHOSE    IS    THE    UNEAENED   LAND    VALUE? 

Those  who  claim  the  unearned  land  value 
for  the  community  or  the  State  advance  one 
or  both  of  these  reasons:  the  land  belongs 
to  the  community ;  the  land  value  is  a  product 
of  the  community.  Both  these  assertions 
have  been  refuted  in  previous  chapters.  The 
second,  however,  being  independent  of,  and 
apparently  more  plausible  than,  the  first, 
may  profitably  be  made  the  subject  of  a  sep- 
arate inquiry.  It  is  thus  clearly  proposed 
in  an  article  of  the  Catholic  Sentinel,  Port- 
land, Ore.,  November  3rd,  1904: 

"When  the  first  comer  settles  on  a  claim 
in  the  midst  of  a  vast  wilderness,  the  land 
has  no  value  whatever.  It  is  of  very  little 
difference  to  him  whether  he  settles  a  few 
miles  farther  east  or  west,  provided  that 
the  bounties  of  nature  are  pretty  evenly  dis- 
tributed in  the  new  region.  But  when  the 
second  settler  comes,  there  is  a  decided  ad- 
vantage in  settling  in  the  neighborhood  of 
155 


156  THE  UNEARNED  LAND  VALUE 

the  original  comer,  for  the  reason  that  the 
two  settlers  will  be  able  to  help  one  another 
in  their  work.  At  this  stage,  the  land  which 
originally  had  no  value,  receives  a  slight 
value,  due  merely  to  the  fact  that  a  settle- 
ment has  been  begun.  As  time  goes  on,  and 
the  numbers  in  the  community  increase,  a 
teacher  is  hired  to  instruct  the  children.  A 
new  family  now  moving  into  the  wilderness 
would  have  a  very  strong  motive  inducing 
them  to  locate  near  the  new  settlement, 
rather  than  to  move  farther  on  in  the  wilder- 
ness. Then  a  church,  a  store,  a  blacksmith 
shop,  police  protection,  and  other  accessories 
of  a  well-regulated  community,  are  obtained. 
And  these  things  and  other  similar  causes 
combine  to  increase  the  value  of  the  land. 
Now  Henry  George,  and  with  him  Dr.  Mc- 
Glynn,  proposed  that  this  land  value  due 
to  the  presence  of  society,  this  'unearned  in- 
crement' of  value,  should  be  confiscated  for 
the  use  of  society." 

The  argument  contained  in  this  passage, 
as  we  have  already  shown  elsewhere,  proves 
too  much, — a  clear  sign  that  there  is  a 
radical  flaw  in  it.  When  the  first  comer 
settles  in  a  vast  wilderness,  the  land  has 
indeed  no  exchange  value  whatever.  But  the 
very  same  is  the  case  with  everything  else  the 


THE  UNEARNED  LAND  VALUE     157 

settler  may  possess  or  raise  or  manufacture 
in  that  new  region:  huts,  barns,  horses,  cat- 
tle, chickens,  corn,  potatoes,  beans,  shoes, 
clothes,  implements,  etc.,  etc.  None  of  these 
objects  has  in  the  midst  of  a  vast  wilderness 
any  exchange  value  whatever.  Now  let  other 
settlers  come  into  the  same  region,  and  not 
only  the  land,  but  all  other  property  begins 
to  have  an  exchange  value,  which  will,  within 
certain  limits,  increase  as  the  community 
grows  and  advances.  This  value  is  ''due  to 
the  presence  of  society"  and  is,  if  we  deduct 
a  fair  compensation  for  the  labor  expended 
on  those  objects,  an  "unearned  increment  of 
value,"  just  as  in  the  case  of  land.  Ac- 
cordingly all  this  ''unearned  increment  of 
value"  is  to  be  "confiscated  for  the  use  of 
society."  Thus,  according  to  the  principles 
of  the  Single  Tax  men,  we  have  not  taxation 
on  one  kind  only  of  goods,  i.  e.,  land,  but  on 
all  kinds ;  we  have  not  a  ' '  single ' '  tax,  but — 
mirabile  dictuf — a  universal  tax! 

To  escape  this  absurdity,  one  might  say: 
There  is  a  difference  between  things  pro- 
duced by  labor  and  things  not  so  produced. 
The  former  we  do  not  want  to  tax,  but  only 
the  latter;  the  former  belong  to  their  owner 
with  all  the  value  that  may  eventually  accrue 
to  them;  not  so  the  latter.    We  ask:    Why 


158  THE  UNEARNED  LAND  VALUE 

do  the  former,  but  not  the  latter,  belong  to 
their  respective  owners  with  all  the  value 
that  may  eventually  accrue  to  them?  This 
discrimination  is  quite  arbitrary.  Between 
things  produced  by  labor  and  things  not  so 
produced,  there  is,  of  course,  this  difference 
that  on  the  former  human  labor  has  been 
expended  to  produce  them,  while  no  labor  has 
been  expended  on  the  latter,  except,  perhaps, 
for  their  improvement.  But  what  follows 
from  such  difference?  This,  that  the  por- 
tion of  the  value  which  corresponds  to  the 
amount  of  labor  expended  is  rightly  con- 
sidered as  a  compensation  for  that  work  or 
labor  and  is  therefore  earned  by  such  labor ; 
whilst  the  surplus  of  the  value  is  not  a  com- 
pensation for  labor  and  is  therefore  un- 
earned. Now  in  society,  especially  in  mod- 
em society  with  its  manifold  artificial  means 
of  production  and  communication,  things 
produced  have,  as  a  rule,  a  much  greater 
value  than  the  mere  equivalent  of  the  labor 
expended  on  them.  This  surplus  of  value, 
therefore,  is  no  less  unearned  by  the  pro- 
ducer than  the  value  of  a  piece  of  unim- 
proved land  is  unearned  by  the  landowner. 
In  this  regard  there  is  absolutely  no  differ- 
ence  between   the   two   kinds   of  property. 


THE  UNEARNED  LAND  VALUE     159 

Hence  if  the  owner  of  things  produced  by 
labor  may  rightfully  claim  the  ''unearned 
increment"  of  their  value,  so  may  the  owner 
of  landed  property  rightfully  claim  the  ''un- 
earned increment"  of  his  land.  The  first- 
mentioned  proprietor  has  no  better  title  to  the 
said  "unearned  increment"  of  value  than  the 
landowner  has  to  the  value  of  his  land. 

Yes,  he  has  a  better  title,  replies  Henry 
George;  for  having  produced  the  objects  in 
question  he  really  owns  them  and  conse- 
quently also  that  which  flows  from  such 
ownership ;  the  landowner,  on  the  other  hand, 
has  not  the  producer's  title — the  only  title 
from  which,  in  the  last  resort,  springs  the 
right  of  ownership. 

This  answer  would  indeed  remove  the  ab- 
surdity we  have  pointed  out,  but  only  by 
substituting  another  absurdity,  viz.,  that 
labor  (production)  is  the  original  title  of 
ownership  and  that  land,  not  being  produced, 
can  not  really  and  truly  be  owned. 

The  same  reason  is  clothed  by  the  Catholic 
Sentinel  also  in  this  form:  "It  seems  to 
us  that  the  real  question  is :  Is  it  desirable, 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  general  good, 
that  John  Smith,  who  owns  a  corner  lot  in 
a  rapidly  growing  suburb,  should  be  allowed 


160  THE  UNEARNED  LAND  VALUE 

to  pocket  the  rise  in  value  of  his  lot,  although 
he  has  not  done  anything  personally  towards 
causing  the  rise?" 

And,  we  may  add,  since  the  unjust  is  cer- 
tainly undesirable  and  the  just  desirable, 
the  real  question  is  ultimately:  Is  it  just, 
from  the  standpoint  of  natural  right,  that 
John  Smith,  the  owner  of  a  corner  lot, 
pockets  the  rise  in  the  value  of  his  lot,  al- 
though he  has  not  done  anything  towards 
causing  the  rise?  This  question,  however, 
supposes  in  the  mind  of  the  enquirer  a  rather 
imperfect  notion  of  lawful  and  unlawful 
'^  pocketing. "  In  order  to  pocket  something 
lawfully  it  is  not  at  all  necessary  that  one 
should  have  done  something  personally  to- 
wards its  rise  or  origin;  he  may  have  some 
other  title  to  claim  it.  A  few  examples  will 
make  this  evident. 

The  owner  of  a  large  vineyard,  let  us 
suppose,  has  had  for  several  years  such  poor 
crops  that  he  was  barely  compensated  for 
his  work.  But  after  the  years  of  scarcity 
follow  very  fruitful  years.  With  the  same 
amount  of  labor  the  wine-grower  realizes 
now  the  threefold  crop  of  former  years. 
Evidently  two-thirds  of  the  increased  re- 
turns are  ''unearned  increment";  neverthe- 
less  he  pockets   the   profit   with   the   same 


THE  UNEARNED  LAND  VALUE      161 

quiet  conscience  with  which  he  formerly  took 
the  poorer  returns.  A  seamstress,  working 
according  to  the  old  style,  by  hand,  earned 
$1.50  a  day,  which  was  a  fair  compensation 
for  her  work  and  amply  sufficient  for  her 
support.  She  purchased  a  sewing  machine 
and  now,  with  the  same  amount  of  labor, 
earns  $3  a  day.  In  less  than  two  months 
the  machine  is  paid  for.  Henceforth  she 
receives  every  week  $9  over  and  above  the 
compensation  for  her  personal  labor,  accord- 
ingly as  pure  gain,  or,  in  technical  parlance, 
as  an  unearned  increment.  Needless  to  say, 
she  pockets  the  whole  of  her  $18  every  week 
without  a  scruple.  More  than  that,  every 
month  she  deposits  the  sum  of  $35  in  a  bank 
at  3y2  per  cent,  interest,  and  every  year  she 
draws  the  interest  of  her  increasing  capital, 
again  without  the  least  scruple,  although  she 
has  done  nothing  personally  towards  causing 
this  increase  of  her  money.  Now  on  what 
ground,  we  ask,  will  or  can  any  one  disturb 
the  quiet  conscience  of  that  happy  wine- 
grower or  of  that  industrious  seamstress? 
Was  not  all  they  pocketed  their  legitimate 
gain  or  income,  although  part  of  it  was  not 
due  to  their  personal  labor,  was  not  earned  by 
them,  but  was  for  them  truly  an  "unearned 

increment"?    Evidently  earning  or  labor  is 
11 


162    THE  UNEARNED  LAND  VALUE 

not  the  only  lawful  title  to  ownership,  profit 
or  gain.  Hence  John  Smith  may  have  a 
just  claim  to  the  increased  value  of  his  corner 
lot,  although  he  did  not  earn  it. 

But  has  the  land  value  which  John  Smith 
did  not  earn,  perhaps  been  earned  by  the 
community!  In  the  question  whether  or  not 
the  land  value  is  earned  by  the  community, 
this  latter  expression  may  stand  either  for 
the  community  in  as  much  as  it  is  one  social 
body,  or  simply  for  the  individuals  who  com- 
pose it.  In  either  case  the  question  is  to  be 
answered  in  the  negative.  The  importance 
and  subtlety  of  this  point  demand  a  thorough 
and  detailed  examination. 

We  have  repeatedly  used  the  term  ''un- 
earned'^ without  dwelling  on  its  definition. 
Here  it  is  necessary  to  analyze  and  ascertain 
its  true  meaning.  What  then  does  this  term, 
taken  in  its  proper  and  strict  sense,  mean? 
An  alms  which  you  give  to  a  poor  man  is  not 
earned  by  him;  he  receives  it  as  a  charity. 
A  rich  man  who  lives  on  his  interest,  does  not 
live  on  his  earnings;  the  property  which 
yields  him  a  sufficient  income  to  live  on,  may 
have  been  earned  by  him  previously;  but  he 
may  also  have  received  it  as  an  inheritance 
from  his  parents,  in  which  case  it  was  not 
earned  by  him.     The  husbandman,  however. 


THE  UNEARNED  LAND  VALUE      163 

who  lives  on  the  produce  of  his  farm,  in  as 
much  as  that  produce  is  the  result  of  his 
labor,  lives  on  his  earnings.  Again  the  fair 
wages  of  a  workman,  the  salary  of  a  clerk 
or  a  teacher,  are  earned  by  them,  because 
they  are  due  compensation  for  work  for 
which  they  have  been  engaged. 

It  is  plain  that  two  conditions  are  essen- 
tially required  in  order  that  something  may 
be  said  to  be  earned.  First,  it  must  be  a 
remuneration  for  labor,  i.  e.,  for  the  exertion 
of  one's  powers.  Earning  and  labor  are 
correlative  terms;  one  implies  the  other. 
Secondly,  the  remuneration  must  be  one  to 
which  he  who  receives  it  is  by  justice  entitled. 
Such  is  the  case  of  the  farmer  who  by  dint 
of  his  own  labor  raises  a  crop  on  his  farm; 
he  can  not  be  deprived  of  it  by  any  one  with- 
out injustice.  Such  is  likewise  the  claim  of 
the  workingman,  the  clerk,  the  teacher,  with 
regard  to  their  wages  or  salary.  A  claim 
of  justice  is  essential  to  constitute  earning 
in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term. 

This  claim  of  justice,  may,  however,  arise 
in  two  ways,  according  as  one  works  for 
himself,  so  to  say  as  his  own  master,  or  for 
another  by  whom  he  is  employed.  He  who 
works  for  himself  and  with  his  own  means, 
can  evidently  claim  as  his  own  the  product 


164  THE  UNEARNED  LAND  VALUE 

of  his  labor.  Thus  the  produce  of  an  in- 
dependent farmer  belongs  to  him;  the  work 
of  art  produced  by  a  painter  or  a  sculptor 
belongs  to  the  artist.  No  one  can  deprive 
them  of  the  fruit  of  their  labor  without  in- 
justice ;  and  if  they  exchange  it  for  an  equiv- 
alent amount  of  another  kind  of  property, 
or  for  an  equivalent  sum  of  money,  the  price 
they  receive  is  in  justice  theirs,  it  is  earning 
in  another  form.  If  one  works  for  another, 
i.  e.,  if  he  hires  his  labor  to  another  and  for 
his  benefit,  a  fair  compensation  for  the  work 
is  to  be  agreed  upon,  and  this  agreement  or 
contract  constitutes  in  this  case  the  claim  of 
justice  to  the  compensation  when  the  work 
has  been  conscientiously  done  according  to 
the  agreement.  Examples  of  this  second 
kind  are  hired  laborers,  clerks,  teachers,  etc. 
Hence  we  arrive  at  the  following  definition: 
That,  and  that  only,  is  earned,  which  belongs 
to  one  as  a  product  of  labor  or  as  a  compen- 
sation for  labor. 

The  exact  meaning  of  the  term  being  es-" 
tablished,  the  question, — Is  the  land  value 
earned  by  the  community?  can  now  be  more 
clearly  expressed  thus :  Does  the  land  value 
belong  to  the  community  as  a  product  of 
labor  or  as  a  compensation  for  labor?  All 
agree  that  the  exchange  value  of  a  statue 


THE  UNEARNED  LAND  VALUE     165 

or  a  painting  which  has  been  produced  by 
an  artist  working  independently,  is  to  be 
considered  as  compensation  for  his  work  and 
is  therefore  earned  by  him.  All  agree  like- 
wise that  the  increase  in  value  which  is  due 
to  the  improvements  made  by  the  landowner 
himself  is  earned  by  him.  But  the  question 
with  which  we  are  engaged  at  present  refers 
to  the  value  which  land  has,  irrespective  of 
improvements.    Is  this  value  earned? 

Let  us  call  to  mind  what  exchange  value 
is  and  how  it  originates.  The  exchange 
value,  as  we  have  mentioned  elsewhere,  is  the 
capacity  of  an  object,  which  it  has  in  society, 
of  being  exchanged  (sold)  for  some  other 
good.  The  correctness  of  this  definition 
may  be  made  evident  by  its  application  to 
any  particular  example,  be  it  a  movable  good, 
a  piano,  a  horse;  or  an  immovable  one,  a 
field,  a  farm,  a  town  lot.  The  exchange 
value  arises  proximately  from  the  common 
judgment  or  estimation  of  men,  remotely 
from  various  features  of  the  salable  object 
and  from  external  circumstances  or  con- 
ditions on  account  of  which  people  attach 
to  objects  such  and  such  a  value.  The  prin- 
cipal factor  determining  the  exchange  value 
is  in  all  cases  the  usefulness  or  fitness  of 
the  object  to  satisfy  the  wants  or  desires 


166  THE  UNEARNED  LAND  VALUE 

of  men.  But  the  cost  of  production  or 
transportation  and  the  abundance  or  scar- 
city of  similar  goods  are  likewise  to  be 
taken  into  consideration.  Now  in  the  case 
of  landed  property  there  can  plainly  be  no 
question  of  cost  of  production  or  transpor- 
tation. Its  value,  therefore,  will  depend  ex- 
clusively upon  the  usefulness,  be  it  for  agri- 
cultural or  for  business  purposes,  of  the 
respective  parcels  of  land,  and  on  the 
greater  or  lesser  difficulty  of  obtaining  suit- 
able estates.  How,  then,  does  the  value  of 
land,  irrespective  of  the  qualities  it  possesses 
by  nature,  and  of  the  improvements  which 
are  the  result  of  the  owner's  labor,  arise? 

Let  us  consider  the  settlement  in  the  wil- 
derness, whose  formation  and  development 
the  writer  in  the  Catholic  Sentinel  describes, 
after  it  has  grown  to  be  a  town  of  about  500 
families.  Land  has  now  a  considerable 
value,  because  it  is  much  more  advantageous 
to  live  in  town  than  outside  of,  or  at  some 
distance  from  it.  For  there  is  "a  decided 
advantage"  in  living  near  so  many  neigh- 
bors, who  may  assist  you  when  you  need 
help,  who  may  provide  you  with  almost  any- 
thing you  want  in  time  of  health  or  sick- 
ness, as  the  grocer,  the  baker,  the  tailor, 
the  carpenter,  the  doctor,  the  druggist,  etc., 


THE  UNEARNED  LAND  VALUE     167 

etc.  On  account  of  such  and  similar  ad- 
vantages people  attach  to  land  in  town  a 
greater  value  than  to  the  surrounding  or 
more  distant  territory. 

Now  do  the  inhabitants  of  the  town 
'  *  create, "  i.  e.  produce,  for  one  another  those 
practical  or  social  advantages  which  make 
the  land  so  valuable  in  the  eyes  of  all?  Cer- 
tainly they  do,  but  how?  They  create  them 
indirectly  and  incidentally  with  what  they 
create  directly  and  immediately.  Take  for 
instance  the  grocer,  who  builds  his  store  in  a 
certain  place  and  keeps  it  stocked  with  all 
the  kinds  of  groceries  people  may  desire. 
The  store  with  its  provisions  is  the  direct 
and  immediate  product  of  his  labor  or  activ- 
ity, it  is  his  creation  in  the  strict  economic 
sense,  entailing  the  ownership  of  the  prod- 
uct, viz.,  of  the  store  with  its  provisions.  But 
this  same  building  with  the  groceries  stored 
therein  furnishes  ipso  facto  to  all  the  in- 
habitants of  the  place  the  opportunity  or  ad- 
vantage that  they  can  buy  there  whatever 
they  wish  in  the  line  of  groceries.  This  is  an 
indirect  and  incidental  effect  or  consequence 
of  our  grocer's  enterprising  activity.  The 
advantage  thus  indirectly  and  incidentally 
created  for  the  people  is  indeed  a  real  ad- 
vantage, and  a  considerable  one.    But  is  it 


168     THE  UNEARNED  LAND  VALUE 

earned  by  the  storekeeper?  that  is  to  say, 
does  it  belong  to  him  as  a  product  of  his 
labor?  which  product,  since  it  passes  to 
others  who  are  benefited  by  it,  viz.,  the  people 
of  the  town,  demands  on  their  part  a  cor- 
responding remuneration?  Evidently  no. 
Who  has  ever  heard  that  people  were  bound 
to  compensation  for  the  mere  advantage  of 
having  a  grocery  store  in  their  neighbor- 
hood? 

For  the  grocer,  however,  it  is  likewise  a 
great  advantage  that  so  many  families  live 
near  him.  What  would  become  of  him  and 
his  store  if  there  were  no  people  in  the  place? 
Yet  for  this  advantage,  again,  of  having  so 
many  people  living  near  him,  the  storekeeper 
owes  them  no  compensation ;  only  when  they 
come  to  buy  from  him  is  he  bound  in  justice 
to  give  them  whatever  they  want,  provided 
he  accepts  from  them  the  fair  price  he  has 
fixed  for  his  goods.  The  advantages,  there- 
fore, which  the  grocer  and  the  people  create 
for  one  another  are  of  such  a  nature  as  not 
to  demand  any  compensation  on  either  side; 
in  other  words,  they  are  not  earned. 

But  suppose  a  compensation  were  due. 
Are  these  advantages  not  mutual  and,  eco- 
nomically considered,  equal?  Undoubtedly 
between  the  advantage,  on  the  part  of  the 


THE  UNEARNED  LAND  VALUE      169 

grocer,  of  having  a  chance  to  sell  his  goods, 
and  that,  on  the  part  of  the  people,  of  having 
an  opportunity  to  buy  what  they  need,  there 
is,  from  an  economical  standpoint,  no  differ- 
ence; for  as  long  as  buyer  and  seller  deal 
fairly  with  one  another,  each  will  always  re- 
ceive the  equivalent  of  what  he  gives.  Hence 
it  follows  that  the  compensation  due  on  one 
side  would,  in  our  supposition,  be  balanced 
by  that  which  is  due  on  the  other.  Accord- 
ingly, in  whatever  way  we  may  consider  the 
economic  or  social  advantage  created  by  the 
grocer  for  the  inhabitants  of  our  prospering 
town,  it  is  in  no  wise  ''earned"  by  him. 

What  has  been  said  of  the  grocer,  holds 
good  of  all  the  other  inhabitants.  Whatever 
material  advantages  may  accrue  to  others 
from  their  presence  and  private  enterprise, 
are  produced  indirectly  and  incidentally,  and 
without  claim  to  compensation;  in  other 
words,  they  are  not  earned. 

On  the  public  improvements,  i.  e.,  those 
which  are  made  by  the  community  or  town 
as  such,  e.  g.,  public  roads,  public  buildings, 
etc.,  and  on  the  advantages  arising  from 
them,  we  need  not  enter.  Public  improve- 
ments are  brought  about  and  supported  by 
common  expense ;  they  belong  to  all  and  bene- 
fit, all;  besides  their  connection  with  the  rise 


170  THE  UNEARNED  LAND  VALUE 

of  land  values  is  the  same  as  with  that  of 
private  enterprises  or  improvements. 

However,  in  order  to  make  our  description 
of  the  origin  of  land  values  complete,  let  us 
consider  how  social  advantages  are  produced 
by  causes  exterior  to  our  imaginary  town. 
Suppose  a  railroad  line  is  built  through  it. 
At  once  the  land  values  will  begin  to  rise. 
Why  1  Because  of  the  new  advantage  of  easy 
communication  with  other  places,  which  helps 
business  and  traffic  exceedingly.  Can  the 
railroad  company  claim  from  the  town  any 
compensation  for  the  facility  it  offers  of  com- 
municating with  distant  towns  and  cities? 
No.  The  company  owns  the  road  which  it 
has  built,  the  direct  product  of  its  labor  and 
expenses.  Besides,  when  the  road  is  actually 
used,  the  owners  can  claim  the  actual  income 
ffom  traffic  and  transportation.  But  for  the 
facility,  as  such,  of  communicating  with 
other  places,  no  compensation  is  due  to  the 
company  for  the  same  reasons  as  we  have 
set  forth  above. 

Accordingly,  all  the  practical  advantages 
which  arise  for  the  people  from  private  and 
public  improvements,  and  which  increase  the 
land  values,  are  unearned  by  those  who  pro- 
duced the  respective  improvements.     Can  it 


THE  UNEARNED  LAND  VALUE   171 

then  be  that  the  land  values  themselves  are 
earned  by  them? 

Let  us  proceed  to  the  last  stage  of  our  ar- 
gument. How  do  the  social  advantages 
which  concur  in  raising  the  value  of  land  pro- 
duce this  effect  ?  They  do  not  act  physically, 
like  the  rays  of  the  sun  which  ripen  the 
grapes,  or  like  a  mechanic  who  produces  a 
tool.  Their  activity  is  of  a  totally  different 
order;  it  is  what  is  called  by  philosophers  a 
moral  activity,  one  exerted  in  and  through 
the  reflecting  mind.  For  those  practical  ad- 
vantages are  reasons  on  account  of  which  the 
common  estimation  of  men  attaches  to  such 
or  such  parcels  or  sites  of  land  such  or  such 
a  value.  The  mind  considers  them  as  well  as 
various  features  and  circumstances  of  the 
land  itself  and  thus  after  an  equitable  ap- 
preciation of  all  the  objective  reasons  forms 
the  judgment  or  decision  by  which  the  land 
value  is  finally  determined.  Such  is  the  na- 
ture and  the  origin  of  that  mysterious  thing 
called  exchange  value. 

Now  since  the  objective  reasons  which 
create  the  land  value,  produce  their  effect  by 
an  activity  altogether  different  from  that 
which  we  call  labor,  the  land  value  in  itself 
is  not  a  product  of  labor  and  consequently  is 


172  THE  UNEARNED  LAND  VALUE 

not  earned  directly.  The  same  holds  of  ex- 
change values  generally.  They  neither  have 
in  themselves  any  physical  reality  which  is 
produced  by  labor,  nor  do  they  originate 
from  their  remote  causes  in  any  other  way 
except  by  the  appreciation  of  the  mind. 
Hence  they  can  never  be  earned  in  them- 
selves or  directly.  They  may,  however,  be 
earned  indirectly  or  mediately,  i.  e.,  in  as 
much  as  the  causes  from  which  they  arise 
are  earned.  Thus  the  value  of  a  statue  or  a 
painting  is  earned  by  the  artist,  because  the 
artistic  perfection  of  the  work  which  gives 
it  its  value,  is  the  product  of  his  labor.  For 
the  same  reason  the  increase  in  value  which 
is  due  to  improvements  made  by  the  land- 
owner, is  earned  by  him,  viz.  indirectly.  But 
we  are  now  dealing  only  with  the  value  which 
land  has  on  account  of  exterior  social  ad- 
vantages. These  advantages,  as  we  have 
demonstrated,  are  unearned  and  conse- 
quently the  rise  in  value  of  land  caused  by 
them  is  not  even  earned  indirectly.  This  land 
value,  therefore,  is  absolutely  unearned.  It 
may  be  called,  in  a  general  sense,  a  product 
or  creation  of  society,  to  signify  that  it 
springs  through  the  estimation  of  men  from 
practical  advantages  found  only  in  society; 
but  it  can  not  be  called  so  in  the  economic 


THE  UNEARNED  LAND  VALUE     173 

sense  of  the  term.  The  land  value,  irrespec- 
tive of  improvements,  is  strictly  and  abso- 
lutely an  unearned  increment. 

We  are  now  prepared  definitely  to  answer 
the  query,  To  whom  does  the  land  value,  this 
''unearned  increment,"  belong  and  by  what 
title?  According  to  the  principles  laid  down 
so  far  the  answer  can  not  be  doubtful.  The 
exchange  value  of  an  object,  as  we  have  seen, 
is  the  possibility  of  obtaining  by  exchange 
an  equivalent  amount  of  other  goods;  in 
other  words,  it  is  the  usefulness  of  the  object 
considered  as  a  means  of  exchange.  Now 
who  can  claim  this  usefulness  ?  Evidently  no 
one  except  the  owner  of  the  object.  The 
owner  and  he  alone  has  in  virtue  of  his  right 
of  ownership  the  legitimate  and  inviolable 
power  of  disposing  of  his  property  for  his 
own  benefit,  and  that  in  any  manner  what- 
ever, so  long  as  he  does  not  violate  the  rights 
of  others  or  a  just  law  prohibiting  such  or 
such  a  particular  use  of  his  right.  The 
owner  may  keep  his  property  for  himself  or 
give  it  away  as  a  free  donation ;  he  may  lease 
it  to  others  for  a  certain  amount  of  yearly 
rent ;  he  may  also,  if  he  pleases,  give  it  away 
on  condition  of  receiving  for  it  its  equiv- 
alent according  to  common  estimation — a 
transaction  which  we  call  selling.    If  he  sells 


174  THE  UNEARNED  LAND  VALUE 

his  property,  his  ownership  in  what  he  sells 
ceases,  but  in  its  stead  he  receives  its  equiv- 
alent, i.  e.,  becomes  the  owner  of  the  price. 

Now  in  selling  his  property  and  pocketing 
a  fair  price  for  it,  does  the  seller  violate  any 
just  law  or  other  people's  rights?  The  law 
forbids  the  act  of  selling  only  in  special  cir- 
cumstances, e.  g.,  if  the  owner  is  under  age. 
Generally  speaking,  a  proprietor  is  not  for- 
bidden by  law  to  sell  his  property.  Besides, 
the  seller  does  not  wrong  the  buyer,  because 
the  latter  receives  the  equivalent  of  the  price 
he  pays  and  consents  to  the  bargain  freely. 
Finally,  no  one  else  is  in  any  way  wronged, 
because  no  one  else  owns  the  property  in 
question  or  has  a  claim  to  its  value  or  any 
part  of  it.  Hence  the  transaction  is  entirely 
legitimate.  By  selling  his  property  the  seller 
becomes  the  rightful  owner  of  the  whole  price 
which  he  receives,  just  as  the  buyer  becomes 
the  rightful  owner  of  the  whole  property 
which  he  buys.  Claiming  the  price  for  any 
one  else  than  the  owner  of  the  salable  object, 
would  evidently  be  to  deny  his  right  of 
ownership.  But  the  claim  to  the  price  in  case 
of  an  exchange,  and  the  claim  to  the  ex- 
change value  of  an  object,  are  one  and  the 
same  thing.  Consequently,  to  deny  the  owner 
the  claim  to  the  value  of  his  property,  is  in 


THE  UNEARNED  LAND  VALUE     175 

fact  a  denial  of  liis  right  of  ownership.  By 
its  very  nature,  therefore,  the  value  belongs 
to  the  owner  of  the  valuable  object  and  the 
right  of  ownership  essentially  includes  the 
legitimate  claim  to  the  value  of  the  object 
owned,  no  matter  what  that  object  is,  chattel 
or  land. 

From  the  foregoing  the  reader  will  easily 
understand  that  our  doctrine  is  but  an  ap- 
plication of  the  principle:  ''Res  fructificat 
domino."  The  exchange  value  as  such  is 
a  product  or  fruit  which  property  yields 
under  certain  favorable  conditions  of  society. 
It  is  a  civil  or  social  fruit.  Outside  of  so- 
ciety property  would  be  useful  only  within  a 
very  limited  sphere;  in  society  it  becomes, 
besides,  under  favorable  circumstances,  ex- 
changeable for  other  useful  goods.  This  new 
advantageous  feature  of  property,  with  all 
the  benefit  to  be  derived  from  it,  belongs  to 
the  owner  of  the  object  for  the  same  reason 
that  its  other  useful  qualities  and  its  natural 
fruitfulness  belong  to  him.  The  owner  of  a 
thing  owns  the  real  thing  and  the  whole  thing 
as  it  is;  he  owns  it,  therefore,  with  all  its 
fitness  for  immediate  practical  purposes  and 
with  all  its  fruitfulness,  if  it  is  capable  of 
bearing  fruit,  be  it  physically  or  civilly. 

**Res  fructificat  domino"  is  a  self-evident 


176  THE  UNEARNED  LAND  VALUE 

principle  and  is  constantly  applied  by  every 
one  without  the  slightest  misgiving.  If  the 
owner  of  a  vineyard  is  blessed  with  a  crop 
that  not  only  compensates  his  labor,  but 
leaves  him  double  the  amount  as  pure  gain, 
one-third  of  the  produce  goes  to  him  as  "la- 
borer," being  the  fruit  of  his  labor,  the  re- 
mainder goes  to  him  merely  as  landowner, 
being  the  fruit  of  his  vineyard ;  the  former  is 
an  industrial,  the  latter  a  natural  fruit.  The 
seamstress  of  whom  we  spoke  on  a  previous 
page,  who  earns  $3  a  day  with  her  machine, 
pockets  indeed  the  whole  amount;  but  only 
half  of  it  is  her  personal  earning;  the  other 
half  is  the  industrial  fruit  of  her  machine, 
just  as  the  interest  which  she  draws  from  the 
bank  is  the  civil  fruit  of  her  deposit.  The 
* '  fruit ' '  of  her  machine,  however,  and  of  her 
money,  is  no  less  hers  than  the  sum  which 
corresponds  to  her  personal  daily  work,  be- 
cause **res  fructificat  domino." 

Upon  this  principle  rests  whatever  income 
a  proprietor  may  legitimately  claim  as  pro- 
prietor, independently  of  his  personal  labor 
or  activity ;  for  what  corresponds  to  the  lat- 
ter, is  due  to  him  as  the  fruit  of  his  labor  and 
is  an  earned  increment.  If  in  a  lucrative 
business  one  and  the  same  person  does  the 
work  and  owns  the  capital  put  into  the  busi-  .. 


THE  UNEARNED  LAND  VALUE     177 

ness,  he  can  claim  the  entire  profit,  which  is 
partly  earned,  partly  unearned.  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  one  furnishes  the  work,  and  an- 
other the  capital,  the  profit  will  have  to  be 
divided  between  the  two  partners  according 
to  a  fair  proportion  agreed  upon  before- 
hand; the  share  of  the  former  is  due  to  him 
as  compensation  for  his  labor,  whilst  the 
claim  of  the  latter  is  that  of  a  proprietor  to 
the  fruit  of  his  capital. 

In  an  advanced  stage  of  social  progress 
almost  any  kind  of  property  may  be  made 
productive  or  fruitful.  Not  only  labor,  but 
also  land  and  capital  are  rich  sources  of 
wealth,  nor  can  any  one  of  them  be  dispensed 
with.  Of  the  three,  land  is  undoubtedly  the 
most  important,  no  matter  whether  we  con- 
sider its  abundance  of  hidden  treasures  and 
its  fertility,  by  which  it  is,  as  Leo  XIII.  says, 
*'a  never  failing  store-house  for  man's  ever- 
recurring  needs,"  or  look  upon  it  as  the 
dwelling-place  wherein  men  may  live  and 
build  their  houses,  work-shops,  stores  or 
ofl&ces.  In  both  respects  land  is  the  basis  of 
the  two  other  sources  of  wealth.  It  is,  there- 
fore, of  paramount  importance,  nay  of  im- 
perative necessity  for  the  welfare  of  society 
not  to  abolish,  but  to  maintain  intact  the  right 
of  landownership  as  the  author  of  nature 
and  of  society  has  established  it. 

12 


y 


X. 


THE    FUNDAMENTAL    FALLACY    OF    AGBARIANISM, 
SOCIALISM,  AND  COMMUNISM 

In  his  Open  Letter  Henry  George  strongly- 
resented  that  Leo  XIII.  had  classed  the  Sin- 
gle Tax  men  as  Socialists;  he  moreover  ac- 
cused the  Pope  of  having  confounded  So- 
cialism with  Communism. 

What  is  Socialism?  Socialism  is  a  special 
form  of  Communism,  as  Agrarianism  is  a 
special  form  of  Socialism. 

Every  system  that  attacks  private  owner- 
ship and  substitutes  in  its  place  common 
ownership  is  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word 
Communistic.  Communism,  however,  may  be 
more  or  less  comprehensive  and  radical,  ac- 
cording as  the  denial  of  private  ownership 
extends  to  one  or  several  or  all  of  the  great 
classes  of  material  goods  that  are  at  present 
and  always  have  been  held  in  severalty. 
Extreme  Communism  denies  the  private  own- 
ership of  all  classes  of  objects  and  advocates 
the  transfer  of  all  goods  without  exception 
to  the  community  as  owner  and  administrator. 
178 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  FALLACY     179 

Moderate  Communism  ''advocates  only  the 
abolition  of  private  property  as  far  as  capi- 
tal, or  the  materials  of  labor,  or  productive 
goods  in  contradistinction  to  non-productive 
goods,  is  concerned.  By  productive  goods 
are  meant  real  estate,  all  kinds  of  raw  ma- 
terial, factories,  machines,  tools,  means  of 
transportation,  in  fine,  everything  not  in- 
tended for  immediate  consumption.  .  .  . 
This  moderate  form  of  positive  Communism 
is  at  present  the  only  one  which  has  adher- 
ents. They  are  divided  into  two  large 
groups,  bitterly  hostile  to  each  other:  An- 
archism and  Socialism. 

"Anarchism  (Anarchist  Communism)  de- 
mands the  transfer  of  productive  property 
to  independent  groups  of  workingmen  (com- 
munities). .  .  .  Socialistic  Communism, 
or  simply  Socialism,  advocates  the  transfor- 
mation of  all  capital,  or  means  of  production, 
into  the  common  property  of  society,  or  of 
the  State,  and  the  administration  of  the  prod- 
uce and  the  distribution  of  the  proceeds  by 
the  State.  Since  modern  Socialists,  and 
chiefly  the  followers  of  Karl  Marx,  intend  to 
realize  this  scheme  upon  a  purely  democratic 
basis,  they  call  themselves  Social  Democrats, 
and  their  system  Social  Democracy."^     The 

1  Cathrein-Gettelmann,  Socialism,  pp.   14  sqq. 


180     THE  FUNDAMENTAL  FALLACY 

transformation  of  all  the  means  of  produc- 
tion into  the  common  property  of  the  State 
or  commonwealth,  is  the  final  aim  and  the 
substance  of  Socialism  strictly  so  called,  in 
which  all  Socialist  platforms  both  in  Europe 
and  America  agree.  ^  Their  other  and  more 
immediate  demands,  in  which  there  are  many 
differences,  are,  as  it  were,  only  steps  and 
means  to  accomplish  that  end. — Agrarian  So- 
y  cialism,  finally,  denies  private  and  advocates 
common  ownership  in  land  only. 

All  these  systems  have  one  and  the  same 
principle  in  common,  viz.,  common  or  col- 
lective ownership;  they  differ  only  in  its  ap- 
plication. Whether  they  are  called  Com- 
munism or  Socialism  is  immaterial,  these 
terms  properly  meaning  the  same  thing,  just 
as  the  words  ''community"  and  ''society."  ^ 
In  their  strict  sense,  however,  the  terms  have 
come  to  signify  the  special  systems  as  enu- 
merated and  described  above. 

In  his  Encyclical  "Eerum  Novarum"  Leo 

XIII.  does  not  enter  upon  any  classification 

or  enumeration  of  the  various  Communistic 

forms,  which  he  supposes  to  be  sufficiently 

V       known ;  nor  does  he  mention  any  of  their  de- 

1  Ibid.  pp.  56  sqq. 

2  Cf.  Institutiones  Juris  'Naturalis,  by  Theodore  Meyer, 
S.J.,  Pars  II.,  nn.  137-140. 


/ 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  FALLACY     181 

mands  except  that  which  is  common  to  all 
systems  and  is  the  basis  of  all  other  demands, 
viz.,  common  landownership.  Using  the 
term  Socialism  and  Socialist  in  a  broader 
sense,  he  attacks  all  Communistic  forms  at 
once  and  refutes  them  all  by  disproving  the 
one  essential  and  fundamental  tenet  in  which 
they  agree.  This  was  a  veritable  master- 
stroke of  the  great  Pontiff.  The  foundation 
of  a  building  being  destroyed,  the  stories 
erected  upon  it  tumble  by  themselves.  Such 
is  Leo's  refutation  of  Socialism  and  Commu- 
nism. Apparently  he  deals  only  with  Agra-  ^/ 
rianism,  but  by  refuting  it  he  eo  ipso  refutes 
all  economic  systems  destructive  of  society. 

In  fact,  between  Agrarian  Socialism  and 
the  other  Communistic  forms  there  is  no  es- 
sential difference;  the  difference  lies  merely 
in  a  greater  or  less  degree  of  consistency, 
the  least  consistent  being  Agrarianism,  the 
most  consistent,  extreme  or  absolute  Com- 
munism. A  supporter  of  common  landown- 
ership cannot  consistently  fall  short  of  advo- 
cating Anarchism  or  Socialism  strictly  so 
called,  nay,  even  extreme  Communism. 

''A  Socialist,  therefore,"  writes  Cathrein, 
** might  well  take  a  leaf  out  of  Mr.  George's 
book.    Not  only  as  regards  the  soil,  but  also 


1/ 


182     THE  FUNDAMENTAL  FALLACY 

with  respect  to  all  other  things  owing  part  of 
their  value  to  nature  (and  to  these  how  few 
are  the  exceptions?),  he  might  emphatically 
exclaim:  'Is  not  labor  the  only  source  of  ac- 
quiring? Does  nature  discriminate,  and  des- 
tine her  prizes  for  one  man  rather  than  for 
another?'  This  principle,  then,  of  Mr. 
George's  (viz.,  that  labor  is  the  only  source 
and  title  of  ownership)  avails  him  nothing, 
unless  he  is  prepared  to  throw  himself  into 
the  arms  of  radical  Socialism. ' '  ^  And 
again:  ''Therefore  we  justly  conclude  that 
private  property  in  land  has  the  very  same 
natural  basis  as  private  property  in  general. 
He  who  cries  out  against  individual  property 
in  land  as  unjust,  must  necessarily  raise  his 
voice  against  all  private  property,  and  hence 
openly  and  frankly  profess  downright  Social- 
ism. ' '  ^ 

Let  us  examine  in  detail  how  from  the 
common  ownership  of  land  follow  all  the 
principal  demands  of  Socialism.  Can  an 
Agrarian  Socialist,  without  contradicting 
himself,  admit  private  ownership  in  raw  ma- 
terials? He  cannot.  All  raw  materials  be- 
long to  the  natural  bounties;  they  are  prod- 
ucts  of  nature,  not   of  man.    Accordingly, 

1  The    Champions   of  Agrarian   Socialism,   pp.    112   sqq. 

2  Ibid.  p.  119.  r       +,  , 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  FALLACY     183 

they  are  positively  owned  by  all  men  in  com- 
mon; were  any  one  to  appropriate  a  portion 
of  them  for  himself  to  the  exclusion  of  all 
others,  he  would  rob  mankind  of  its  own. — 
Do  not  say,  raw  material  must  often  be  taken 
out  of  the  bosom  of  the  earth  as  a  fish  must 
be  taken  out  of  the  river  or  lake  to  be  en- 
joyed at  a  meal,  and  this  taking  out  fre- 
quently implies  great  labor  and  expense. 
Taking  is  not  making;  what  is  to  be  taken 
by  man,  must  first  have  been  made  by  nature, 
i.  e.,  the  Creator;  and  what  nature  or  God 
has  made,  is  the  common  property  of  all  and 
no  one's  exclusive  property! — Neither  can 
what  nature  has  given  to  all  be  turned  by  any 
one's  efforts  or  exertions,  however  laborious 
and  expensive,  into  his  private  and  exclusive 
property.  For  such  a  change  would  involve 
the  destruction  of  the  common  ownership  in 
that  particular  object,  since  common  and  in- 
dividual ownership  in  the  same  thing  are  in- 
compatible. But  a  natural  right  of  owner- 
ship vested  in  all  mankind  cannot  be  de- 
stroyed or  cancelled  by  a  particular  action, 
however  laborious,  of  one  or  several  indi- 
viduals. If  this  were  feasible,  why  should 
not  a  burglar  who  with  great  labor  and  skill 
succeeds  in  taking  public  money  out  of  the 
city   treasurer's    vaults,   be    empowered   to 


184    THE  FUNDAMENTAL  FALLACY 

turn  the  common  property  of  the  city  into 
his  private  property? 

But  the  Agrarian  Socialist  must  go  far- 
ther and  surrender  to  the  community  also 
the  artificial  means  of  production.  We  say 
the  artificial  means ;  because  means  which  are 
merely  natural,  e.  g.,  the  flowing  or  falling 
water  of  a  river,  belong  to  the  bounties  of 
nature  which  are  common  to  all.  The  arti- 
ficial means  are  produced  by  human  labor, 
as  machines,  mills,  etc.,  and  are  either  the 
product  of  the  community  as  such  or  that  of 
one  or  several  individuals.  It  is  self-evident 
that  they  are  and  remain  common  property 
in  the  former  case;  and  that  they  are  so  in 
the  latter,  we  shall  now  explain. 

Whatever  particular  means  of  production 
we  may  consider,  e.  g.,  a  machine,  it  consists 
of  material  which,  through  the  labor  and 
skill  of  those  working  on  it,  received  its  pres- 
ent form  and  composition.  That  material, 
however,  was  once  raw  material  and  as  such 
naturally  the  common  property  of  all.  But 
no  private  activity  of  individuals,  as  we  have 
seen,  can  destroy  the  natural  right  of  owner- 
ship vested  in  mankind.  The  material,  there- 
fore, or  the  substance,  as  we  may  call  it,  of 
every  machine,  even  when  completed,  remains 
what  it  was  by  nature,  the  common  property 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  FALLACY     185 

of  all.  Now  the  natural  common  ownership 
in  the  substance  of  the  machine  prevents  the 
acquisition  of  any  private  ownership  in  the 
accidental  form  produced  by  labor. 

For  the  natural  common  right  is  mani- 
festly prior  and  superior  to  any  supervening 
individual  claim  and  must  therefore  prevail 
in  a  case  of  colliding  rights  or  claims.  Such 
a  case  we  have  before  us:  the  ownership  in 
the  substance,  on  the  one  hand,  is  useless 
without  the  ownership  in  the  accidental  form, 
and  vice  versa;  on  the  other,  it  is  impos- 
sible that  the  machine  be,  at  the  same  time, 
the  actual  property  of  mankind  and  the  ex- 
clusive property  of  one  or  several  indi- 
viduals. Whose  claim,  therefore,  must,  in 
the  objective  order  of  justice,  yield  and 
whose  will  prevail?  The  inferior  must  yield 
and  the  superior  will  prevail;  or,  as  Henry 
George  correctly  and  forcibly  puts  it,  **The 
individual  right  is  lost  in  the  common  right. 
It  is  the  greater  that  swallows  up  the  less, 
not  the  less  that  swallows  up  the  greater." 

Consequently,  the  community  which  owns 
the  material  will  also  own  the  form  as  it 
arises  through  the  labor  of  the  "producer;" 
and  when  the  machine  is  finished,  it  is  the 
property  of  the  community,  not  of  the  "pro- 
ducer."   Had  the  latter  worked  on  material 


186     THE  FUNDAMENTAL  FALLACY 

that  was  his  own,  or  at  least  ownerless,  both 
the  substance  and  the  form,  that  is,  the  whole 
machine  would  be  his ;  but  he  worked  on  ma- 
terial owned  by  the  community  and  there- 
fore the  community,  as  owner  of  the  mate- 
rial or  substance,  becomes  also  the  owner 
of  the  new  accidental  form.  The  *' pro- 
ducer," indeed,  has  a  claim  upon  the  com- 
munity which  he  has  benefited  for  a  com- 
pensation for  his  labor;  but  in  the  machine 
itself  he  has  no  claim  of  ownership  except 
that  which  everyone  has  in  the  common  prop- 
erty of  all. 

The  case  of  a  machine  is,  in  the  supposi- 
tion of  common  landownership,  exactly  the 
same  as  that  of  a  cultivated  field.  Take  an 
agriculturist  who,  by  expending  labor,  im- 
proves a  piece  of  land.  What  right  does  he 
acquire  according  to  the  theory  of  common 
landownership  1 

He  acquires  indeed  the  right  to  gather  the 
fruits  of  his  labor,  that  is,  a  portion  of  the 
produce  of  the  field,  but  he  does  not  and  can 
not  acquire  the  ownership  of  the  field;  and 
even  if  he  continues  to  lavish  labor  upon 
it,  he  does  not  acquire  its  ownership.  The 
field  was  before,  and  always  remains,  the 
property  of  all,  and  any  one  who  wishes  to 
cultivate  and  use  it,  has  the  right  to  do  so 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  FALLACY    187 

in  his  turn,  just  as  our  agriculturist  did  so 
far.  If  some  labor  of  his  has  not  yet  been 
adequately  compensated,  he  may  eventually 
claim  what  is  owing  to  him,  but  he  can  not 
permanently  exclude  others  from  cultivating 
and  using  the  same  field  if  they  wish  to  do  so ; 
for  to  exclude  them  would  be  to  deprive 
them  of  their  natural  right  to  the  bounties  of 
nature,  which  are  their  real  property  as  well 
as  that  of  all  others.^ 

In  the  same  way,  whatever  is  natural  in 
the  machine,  is  and  always  remains  the  com- 
mon property  of  all;  the  artificial  improve- 
ment or  accidental  form  which  results  from 

1  In  the  same  manner  Cathrein  argues  in  the  following 
passage:  "  It  would  be  vain  to  object  against  Mr.  George's 
argument,  that  the  agriculturist  expends  labor  and  capital 
on  his  farm,  and  that  there  may  occur  many  cases  in  which 
it  can  scarcely  be  decided  how  much  of  the  value  of  an  es- 
tate is  due  to  labor  and  capital.  From  this  it  would  only 
follow  that  the  farmer  has  the  right  to  gather  the  fruits 
of  his  labor,  but  not  that  he  has  the  right  of  permanently 
excluding  all  others  from  the  use  of  the  same  land. 

"  Perhaps  one  might  urge  that  the  proprietor,  continuing 
to  expend  new  labor  on  his  field,  will  ever  continue  to  be 
entitled  to  exclude  others  from  its  simultaneous  use  in 
order  that  he  may  get  the  fruits  of  his  labor. 

"We  reply:  If  labor  is  the  only  title  of  ownership, 
whence  does  the  landowner  derive  his  right  to  exclude 
others  permanently  from  his  estate,  supposing  that  they 
also  wish  to  cultivate  this  same  piece  of  ground,  especially 
if  no  other  land  is  to  be  had.  He  may  have  a  right  to 
compensation  for  the  labor  already  expended;  but  the  right 
of  excluding  others  permanently  from  the  advantages  which 
the  soil  offers  as  the  previous  condition  and  basis  of  labor, 
cannot  be  derived  from  the  sole  right  to  the  produce  of 
labor."  (The  Champions  of  Agrarian  Socialism,  pp.  100 
sqq.) 


188    THE  FUNDAMENTAL  FALLACY 

labor  could  be  claimed  by  the  producer,  if  it 
were  something  by  itself,  or  if  the  substance 
or  material  were  his  own  or,  at  least,  some- 
thing without  an  owner.  But  the  accidental 
form  is  naturally  inherent  in,  and  physically 
identical  with,  the  substance  and  must  there- 
fore go  to  the  owner  of  the  substance,  the 
community.  The  producer  has  a  right  to  a 
compensation  for  his  labor;  to  its  product, 
that  is  the  machine,  he  has  no  claim.  Thus 
it  is  that  the  principle  of  common  land- 
ownership  leads  necessarily  to  the  common 
ownership  of  all  the  means  of  production 
resulting  from  labor. 

The  same  reasoning  applies  also  to  those 
things  which,  while  produced  by  labor,  are 
not  destined  for  production.  For  whether 
or  not  an  object  is  intended  and  used  for  pro- 
duction, is  a  circumstance  which  makes  no 
difference  whatever  as  regards  the  owner- 
ship of  the  object ;  whatever  is  made  by  labor 
out  of  material  which  is  positively  owned  by 
mankind,  remains  the  property  of  mankind. 
Hence  our  final  conclusion  is,  that  common 
landownership  makes  all  private  ownership 
whatsoever  impossible.  Advocates  of  com- 
mon landownership,  therefore,  can  not  reject, 
but  must  endorse  the  further  demands  of 
Anarchism  or  Socialism  proper,  and  they  as 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  FALLACY     189 

well  as  Anarchists  and  Socialists  must  join 
hands  with  the  extreme  Communists.  From 
the  standpoint  of  natural  justice,  Agrarian-  y 
ism  is  the  real  basis  of  Anarchism,  Socialism, 
and  Communism.  Hence,  when  Leo  XIII.  in 
his  great  Encyclical ' '  Rerum  Novarum ' '  pro- 
posed to  himself  the  task  of  refuting  all  these 
pernicious  systems,  he  could  not  have  found 
a  shorter  and  more  direct  way  of  accomplish-  ^ 
ing  it  than  the  one  chosen  by  him.  As  from 
common  landownership  follows  the  common 
ownership  of  all  raw  materials,  of  all  means 
of  production,  and  of  all  products  of  labor, 
so  from  the  necessity  and  lawfulness  of  pri- 
vate landownership  follows  the  necessity  and 
lawfulness  of  private  ownership  in  the  means 
of  production  as  well  as  in  the  products  of  na- 
ture and  of  labor:  and  all  this  in  virtue  of 
the  right  order  instituted  by  the  Creator  as 
the  natural  law.  Justly  could  the  Pontiff, 
therefore,  conclude  the  first  part  of  his  mem- 
orable Encyclical  with  this  weighty  pro- 
nouncement: ''The  first  and  most  funda- 
mental principle,  accordingly,  if  we  wish  to 
alleviate  the  miserable  condition  of  the 
masses,  must  be  the  inviolability  of  private  * 
property.^* 

This  is  the  only  solid  groundwork  upon 
which  real  and  truly  beneficial  reforms  can 


190     THE  FUNDAMENTAL  FALLACY 

be  built.  Let  all  those,  therefore,  who  have 
the  welfare  of  society  at  heart,  ground  them- 
selves on  this  unshakable  foundation.  And 
let  especially  the  working  classes,  whose  con- 
dition demands  a  speedy  and  sure  remedy, 
turn  away  from  all  who,  by  their  erroneous 
principles,  sap  the  very  basis  of  a  peaceful 
and  prosperous  existence,  whilst  by  their  spe- 
cious promises  they  deceive  the  masses,  fos- 
ter discontent,  and  increase  misery.  If  some 
of  their  immediate  proposals  seem  to  meet 
real  grievances,  they  are  neither  peculiar  to 
their  systems  nor  at  all  connected  with  their 
fundamental  tenets  and  ultimate  aims.  Only 
on  the  basis  of  right  thinking  and  justice  can 
practical  measures  be  devised  and  applied 
which  will  truly  and  permanently  promote 
the  welfare  of  society. 

Leo  XIII.  was  not  satisfied  with  pointing 
out  the  true  principles  of  social  reform;  in 
the  second  part  of  his  Encyclical  he  also  in- 
dicated practical  ways  and  means  for  a  so- 
lution of  the  social  problem.  From  the  ele- 
vated position  of  his  Apostolic  See  he  has 
mapped  out  a  magnificent  programme  for 
Church  and  State,  for  employers  and  em- 
ployees, instructing  them  how  to  accomplish 
the  desired  result  by  harmonious  co-opera- 
tion.   Let  all  Christians  study  and  weigh  his 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  FALLACY     191 

Encyclical  letter  "On  the  Condition  of  La- 
bor" and  heed  the  voice  of  one  whose  mem- 
ory is  deservedly  honored  by  a  monument 
bearing  the  inscription : 

''liEO  xin.,  THE  wokkingmen's  feiend. 


The  End. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


NOV 


IT 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

405  Hllgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  ttie  library 

from  wtiich  it  was  borrowed. 


M 
7-4 


Form  L9 


UNIVERSITY  of  GAUFOKNm 

AT 
LOS  ANGELES 


iJgSOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA      000117653    6 


HD 

1315 

P92f 


la 


Un 


